Will Buddy get a week and a club fine like Jack?

[plugger66]

I just asked a question on the basis that the law rates the 2 offences as similar - the licence suspensions are both for 6 months and the fine for Buddy is actually higher ($599 vs $423), so it could reasonably be argued the LAW rates Buddy's offence as more serious, albeit slightly.

In Jack's case the club fined him $5K (the maximum allowed by a club) and suspended him for a game. Some (like Porky Robinson) called for a longer suspension (Robinson said 4). While some of what was called for by others was on the basis of Jack's previous indiscretion, which put nobody at risk other than himself, and was not deemed by the law to be worth their intervention, the maximum fine and 1 game suspension was couched as mainly due to the severity/risk of what he'd done in the particular instance.

And, now Buddy has an instance that the law rates as slightly worse than Jack. It is rated that way because the law deems both to be of a similar risk to life and limb, particularly to the lives and limbs of others.

To me that suggests that is the standard by which everyone should be judged, should they infringe. Jack is an AFL footballer , so we banged him with some extras for infringing the legal standard set for the community in general. Fair enough.

On those grounds, and given the offences are similar in the standard breached (using the penalties as a reference) I can't see how Buddy can escape extra sanction from his club. If he does it would suggest there is one rule (standard) for him and another for lesser mortals.

And, that would be a crock. I'm not suggesting what extras he should cop, but it sure as hell can't be zip.

He will get a fine from the club which is pretty much all he should expect based on Jack getting a fine and a week. i still say in the community any .05 offence is rated worse than a speeding offence.

[maverick]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

90 in a 50 zone is stupidity and far more serious than driving at .03 more than the legal limit, not speeding or driving dangerously.
One is the act of dangerous, the other gives rise to it

[Dr Spaceman]

I just asked a question on the basis that the law rates the 2 offences as similar - the licence suspensions are both for 6 months and the fine for Buddy is actually higher ($599 vs $423), so it could reasonably be argued the LAW rates Buddy's offence as more serious, albeit slightly.

In Jack's case the club fined him $5K (the maximum allowed by a club) and suspended him for a game. Some (like Porky Robinson) called for a longer suspension (Robinson said 4). While some of what was called for by others was on the basis of Jack's previous indiscretion, which put nobody at risk other than himself, and was not deemed by the law to be worth their intervention, the maximum fine and 1 game suspension was couched as mainly due to the severity/risk of what he'd done in the particular instance.

And, now Buddy has an instance that the law rates as slightly worse than Jack. It is rated that way because the law deems both to be of a similar risk to life and limb, particularly to the lives and limbs of others.

To me that suggests that is the standard by which everyone should be judged, should they infringe. Jack is an AFL footballer , so we banged him with some extras for infringing the legal standard set for the community in general. Fair enough.

On those grounds, and given the offences are similar in the standard breached (using the penalties as a reference) I can't see how Buddy can escape extra sanction from his club. If he does it would suggest there is one rule (standard) for him and another for lesser mortals.

And, that would be a crock. I'm not suggesting what extras he should cop, but it sure as hell can't be zip.

He will get a fine from the club which is pretty much all he should expect based on Jack getting a fine and a week. i still say in the community any .05 offence is rated worse than a speeding offence.

Both are rated extremely bad if they lead to serious injury and/or death.

[bergholt]

On those grounds, and given the offences are similar in the standard breached (using the penalties as a reference) I can't see how Buddy can escape extra sanction from his club. If he does it would suggest there is one rule (standard) for him and another for lesser mortals.

nah, it would just suggest that different clubs choose to treat these things in different ways. we'll see what they do.

on the question of priors, buddy may not have any prior infringements for this reason - but it's pretty well know that there have been some "incidents" in his past which the club knows about. whether or not they choose to consider that in this case is another thing.

to be honest, i think they've done well to restrain themselves from suspending him for this week's game. given he would have missed it anyway, it'd be the perfect punishment...

[maverick]

Reckon more people speed than drive over .05.

I reckon more people drive over 0.05 than do 40kph over the speed limit.

What about .08?. Anyway I point is Jack had at least one prior so he got a week. Not sure Buddy has any priors.

The same.
Lots of people would drive unwittingly at .08 or even more.
Not many drive at 40K over the limit period.

[mr six o'clock]

He'll get a week and a fine .
The thing is it will be next week . they'll say he is over his injury , so he wont miss any extra time .

[plugger66]

I reckon more people drive over 0.05 than do 40kph over the speed limit.

What about .08?. Anyway I point is Jack had at least one prior so he got a week. Not sure Buddy has any priors.

The same.
Lots of people would drive unwittingly at .08 or even more.
Not many drive at 40K over the limit period.

What about at road work sites. I see plenty there.

[maverick]

I reckon more people drive over 0.05 than do 40kph over the speed limit.


What about .08?. Anyway I point is Jack had at least one prior so he got a week. Not sure Buddy has any priors.
The same.
Lots of people would drive unwittingly at .08 or even more.
Not many drive at 40K over the limit period.

What about at road work sites. I see plenty there.

40K over, really?
maybe 20, I can't recall seeing much if any doing 40 over...

[The OtherThommo]

Logically it is not sustainable for anyone to suggest Buddy should get no extras from his club, because to do so would suggest ALL of Jack's penalty was due to his prior indiscretion and Buddy should be allowed one stuff up. In that case, why wasn't Jack given a pass for his first indiscretion (a suspended sentence, if you like)? Because he infringed the demanded standard, even though it was one that did not involve a legal element, or a risk to others.

Jack got whacked for his first breach, and it was a decent whack from memory. Buddy's first breach is worse and has a legal standard to compare against. He cannot escape club sanction or the standards are arbitrarily applied according to who you are.

Surely that couldn't happen?

[plugger66]

Logically it is not sustainable for anyone to suggest Buddy should get no extras from his club, because to do so would suggest ALL of Jack's penalty was due to his prior indiscretion and Buddy should be allowed one stuff up. In that case, why wasn't Jack given a pass for his first indiscretion (a suspended sentence, if you like)? Because he infringed the demanded standard, even though it was one that did not involve a legal element, or a risk to others.

Jack got whacked for his first breach, and it was a decent whack from memory. Buddy's first breach is worse and has a legal standard to compare against. He cannot escape club sanction or the standards are arbitrarily applied according to who you are.

Surely that couldn't happen?

Jacks first breach in the eyes of the law may not be as bad as Buddy but in the eyes of a footy club you cant compare them. Buddy will be fined IMO and that is where it should finish. I reckon a few of us may be surprised at what we dont know about players and drving at our club and possibly at nearly all clubs.

[Dis Believer]

DUI is easily the more dangerous. The message that "speed kills" is a crock anyway, used to condition a population that those in authority wish to fleece for minor infringements against arbitrarily imposed speed limits.

The fact is that the statistics are maniuplated to reinforce the simple two word slogan for all the sheep to recite as they fork over the better part of two hundred dollars for doing 104km/h in a 100km/h zone on a near empty 4 lane, barrier divided brand new freeway in perfect daytime conditions.

Facts are that fatalitites where speed is the ONLY factor are about 4%. If you drink a bottle of scotch then hop in your car and run a red light and run into me and kill me as I proceed through the intersection on my green light, then you are at fault for obvious reasons. But if I was doing 63km/h in a 60km/h zone as I went through that intersection, then speed will be recorded as a factor in the fatality, despite the fact that you were blind drunk and ran a red light. That is how the authorities in Victoria are able to get away with quoting speed as a factor in 40% of fatalities as they merrily go around installing speed cameras in hidden locations on multilane, barrier divided freeways.

Bit of trivia for you. The first year of operation of Eastlink in Melbourne's east saw the government collect $30m in speeding fines, and there was just one fatality.
The fatality - a truck driver had a heart attack and passed out at the wheel and drove into a bridge pylon and died as a result of the collision.

Yeah.....speed kills. Ask yourself how it is in Victoria that car manufacturers are legally only required to produce vehicles with speedometers that are accurate to +/- 10%, but speed cameras are accurate to (supposedly) better than 2%. So your speedo could say you are doing 98Km/h in a 100 zone, you could actually be travelling at 105, and the camera is set at 104km/h. You thought you were OK, the car maker has done nothing wrong, but you have a fine and no leg to stand on. Camera settings used to match the accuracy on car speedometers, not anymore, and not surprisingly something like 70% of fines are from people travelling less than 6 km/h over the limit.

Inappropriate speed in inappropriate conditions and locations is dangerous, but the simple catch-all, easily repeated "speed kills" slogan is nothing to do with road safety, and all about helping to condition the masses to be fleeced.

[Life Long Saint]

Bias at its best right here.

Are you seriously trying to argue that what Jack did was more accidental because it was the next day and speeding is more of a deliberate act?


What if the road conditions changed with Buddy noticing, what if they flow of traffic was going faster than normal, what if there were road works?'

Who knows.


And yes I do watch the ads. And it is serious. Does he deserve a week because Jack drunk drove... Most certainly not.

You read but you don't comprehend. I said in my post that this has nothing to do with the jumper.

You don't accidentally do 90kph in a 50kph zone...especially where he was caught. Hodder Street, East Brighton...Look it up!
https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&s ... CAUQ8gEwAA Go to street view and take virtual drive. There is nowhere on that stretch where any speed upwards of 60kph would be acceptable. Changing road conditions and traffic flow...what a crock! Any road works would reduce the speed further to 30kph max.

Remember that just 5kph more and his car would have been impounded!

Both were stupid acts and if the same body were looking at the incidents the punishments should be the same.

[The OtherThommo]

DUI is easily the more dangerous. The message that "speed kills" is a crock anyway, used to condition a population that those in authority wish to fleece for minor infringements against arbitrarily imposed speed limits.

The fact is that the statistics are maniuplated to reinforce the simple two word slogan for all the sheep to recite as they fork over the better part of two hundred dollars for doing 104km/h in a 100km/h zone on a near empty 4 lane, barrier divided brand new freeway in perfect daytime conditions.

Facts are that fatalitites where speed is the ONLY factor are about 4%. If you drink a bottle of scotch then hop in your car and run a red light and run into me and kill me as I proceed through the intersection on my green light, then you are at fault for obvious reasons. But if I was doing 63km/h in a 60km/h zone as I went through that intersection, then speed will be recorded as a factor in the fatality, despite the fact that you were blind drunk and ran a red light. That is how the authorities in Victoria are able to get away with quoting speed as a factor in 40% of fatalities as they merrily go around installing speed cameras in hidden locations on multilane, barrier divided freeways.

Bit of trivia for you. The first year of operation of Eastlink in Melbourne's east saw the government collect $30m in speeding fines, and there was just one fatality.
The fatality - a truck driver had a heart attack and passed out at the wheel and drove into a bridge pylon and died as a result of the collision.

Yeah.....speed kills. Ask yourself how it is in Victoria that car manufacturers are legally only required to produce vehicles with speedometers that are accurate to +/- 10%, but speed cameras are accurate to (supposedly) better than 2%. So your speedo could say you are doing 98Km/h in a 100 zone, you could actually be travelling at 105, and the camera is set at 104km/h. You thought you were OK, the car maker has done nothing wrong, but you have a fine and no leg to stand on. Camera settings used to match the accuracy on car speedometers, not anymore, and not surprisingly something like 70% of fines are from people travelling less than 6 km/h over the limit.

Inappropriate speed in inappropriate conditions and locations is dangerous, but the simple catch-all, easily repeated "speed kills" slogan is nothing to do with road safety, and all about helping to condition the masses to be fleeced.

Try this mob for a bit of research;

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/ ... rt-safety/

[maverick]

DUI is easily the more dangerous. The message that "speed kills" is a crock anyway, used to condition a population that those in authority wish to fleece for minor infringements against arbitrarily imposed speed limits.

The fact is that the statistics are maniuplated to reinforce the simple two word slogan for all the sheep to recite as they fork over the better part of two hundred dollars for doing 104km/h in a 100km/h zone on a near empty 4 lane, barrier divided brand new freeway in perfect daytime conditions.

Facts are that fatalitites where speed is the ONLY factor are about 4%. If you drink a bottle of scotch then hop in your car and run a red light and run into me and kill me as I proceed through the intersection on my green light, then you are at fault for obvious reasons. But if I was doing 63km/h in a 60km/h zone as I went through that intersection, then speed will be recorded as a factor in the fatality, despite the fact that you were blind drunk and ran a red light. That is how the authorities in Victoria are able to get away with quoting speed as a factor in 40% of fatalities as they merrily go around installing speed cameras in hidden locations on multilane, barrier divided freeways.

Bit of trivia for you. The first year of operation of Eastlink in Melbourne's east saw the government collect $30m in speeding fines, and there was just one fatality.
The fatality - a truck driver had a heart attack and passed out at the wheel and drove into a bridge pylon and died as a result of the collision.

Yeah.....speed kills. Ask yourself how it is in Victoria that car manufacturers are legally only required to produce vehicles with speedometers that are accurate to +/- 10%, but speed cameras are accurate to (supposedly) better than 2%. So your speedo could say you are doing 98Km/h in a 100 zone, you could actually be travelling at 105, and the camera is set at 104km/h. You thought you were OK, the car maker has done nothing wrong, but you have a fine and no leg to stand on. Camera settings used to match the accuracy on car speedometers, not anymore, and not surprisingly something like 70% of fines are from people travelling less than 6 km/h over the limit.

Inappropriate speed in inappropriate conditions and locations is dangerous, but the simple catch-all, easily repeated "speed kills" slogan is nothing to do with road safety, and all about helping to condition the masses to be fleeced.

Why is 3k relevant to this argument.
It's not speeding in general v DUI in general, it's 40K over a speed limit in a residential street v being .08.
Can we argue the situation and not a generalisation?

[plugger66]

Bias at its best right here.

Are you seriously trying to argue that what Jack did was more accidental because it was the next day and speeding is more of a deliberate act?


What if the road conditions changed with Buddy noticing, what if they flow of traffic was going faster than normal, what if there were road works?'

Who knows.


And yes I do watch the ads. And it is serious. Does he deserve a week because Jack drunk drove... Most certainly not.

You read but you don't comprehend. I said in my post that this has nothing to do with the jumper.

You don't accidentally do 90kph in a 50kph zone...especially where he was caught. Hodder Street, East Brighton...Look it up!
https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&s ... CAUQ8gEwAA Go to street view and take virtual drive. There is nowhere on that stretch where any speed upwards of 60kph would be acceptable. Changing road conditions and traffic flow...what a crock! Any road works would reduce the speed further to 30kph max.

Remember that just 5kph more and his car would have been impounded!

Both were stupid acts and if the same body were looking at the incidents the punishments should be the same.

So you dont count priors?

[Life Long Saint]

So you dont count priors?

If they're relevant.

Having a glass of wine with dinner after 7:00pm at a camp is hardly a hanging offence.
I thought the boys were unfairly punished last season.

New regime, new leadership group...clean slate.

[saint75]

Both Jack and Buddy were stupid. End of story. Both acts are dangerous. A road with a 50kmph speed requirement means that the area is *generally* an area that has a lot of pedestrian foot traffic and is a built up area. Meaning that driving at almost double the speed in such an area is dangerous not only too himself but those on the road or footpaths around him.

He should get the same sort of sanction as Jack IMO. He won't as they are missing him badly as it is. They cannot afford to have him out of the team for an extended period, ESPECIALLY if he misses 3-4 with the hamstring. Put another week on that and he is going to drop some form when he comes back into the team. Not optimal heading into the finals.

Just to jump into the 'which is worse' argument, it really depends on how you view it. I don't know what road Jack was driving on, so let us assume he was on a road with the same speed limit as Buddy. Jack driving over the legal blood alcohol limit BUT at the speed limit on the same road as buddy is LESS likely to seriously maim. Buddy, had he hit anyone, would have more likely have done some serious damage. Even if Jack had of veered off the road into the path of a pedestrian is still likely to have done less damage in the unfortunate case that he had hit someone. This argument would depend on way too many variables to accurately compare which is worse the worse offence. Both were stupid and both were lucky not to have injured anyone.

[SideshowMilne]

I used to live on that street, 90 is a disgrace. Its a full on residential street, and kids everywhere. Its slightly wider than most which sucks people like Buddy in. Cops love it and get people at 60+ every 10 minutes. At Buddies speed even they must have been surprised. That's seriously clipping along for that street, very very dangerous.

Fat chicks makes for a much better story though doesn't it Derryn.

[battye]

Both Jack and Buddy were stupid. End of story. Both acts are dangerous. A road with a 50kmph speed requirement means that the area is *generally* an area that has a lot of pedestrian foot traffic and is a built up area.

In WA until about 10 years ago any street without a speed limit sign defaulted to 60kmph. Which was a fair speed limit. It was reduced to 50 which was probably a good thing in some areas which became more built up but on the whole the speed limit is too low.

All things being equal, let's say a street that is no more built-up now than it was then, why was it safe to drive at 60 a decade ago but not any more?

[plugger66]

I think they are both bad but Buddy plays for another club so obviously it is much worse. And lets make excuses for jacks previous indiscretions.

The fact is if this was a Saints player not one person her would expect that player to get suspended for a week. And anyone thinking otherwise needs to look into a mirror and think yes he is 100% right.

[bergholt]

Jack got whacked for his first breach, and it was a decent whack from memory. Buddy's first breach is worse and has a legal standard to compare against. He cannot escape club sanction or the standards are arbitrarily applied according to who you are.

what? they're different clubs. what's your "legal standard" crap got to do with anything?

[maverick]

I think they are both bad but Buddy plays for another club so obviously it is much worse. And lets make excuses for jacks previous indiscretions.

The fact is if this was a Saints player not one person her would expect that player to get suspended for a week. And anyone thinking otherwise needs to look into a mirror and think yes he is 100% right.

Two strikes not enough?

[plugger66]

I think they are both bad but Buddy plays for another club so obviously it is much worse. And lets make excuses for jacks previous indiscretions.

The fact is if this was a Saints player not one person her would expect that player to get suspended for a week. And anyone thinking otherwise needs to look into a mirror and think yes he is 100% right.

Two strikes not enough?

Internet sites. Well thats enough proof then. Anyway even if true what has that to do with this? Do you know how many our guys have? Does jack have any?

[Team Tommy]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

I think you are misquoting stinger. One didn't realise he was committing an offence. The other one did. He said nothing about which offence was more serious .

[maverick]

I think they are both bad but Buddy plays for another club so obviously it is much worse. And lets make excuses for jacks previous indiscretions.

The fact is if this was a Saints player not one person her would expect that player to get suspended for a week. And anyone thinking otherwise needs to look into a mirror and think yes he is 100% right.

Two strikes not enough?

Internet sites. Well thats enough proof then. Anyway even if true what has that to do with this? Do you know how many our guys have? Does jack have any?

Is Buddy your brother?
I am actually only having a bit of fun, I couldn't care what Hawthorn do to him, I can't imagine they would suspend him though.
I hope the Saints suspended and fined Jack because of related issues and because they are trying to teach him how to grow up.
I just look forward to Mark Robinson and others in the media going just as strong at Buddy and any penalty he gets as they did on St Kilda's so called soft call on Jack.