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

[kosifantutti]

Hawks came up with an unusual suspension by making him play with a dodgy hamstring and then missing the next three weeks.

[saintspremiers]

Maybe the AFL need an SRP =Social Responsibility Panel.

Like the MRP, they could grade offences outside footy that players commit, and include priors.

Really a cross between the drug laws the AFL have and the MRP system.

Sounds a whacky idea, but that is where the world is at.

[plugger66]

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.

No he isnt my brother, he is my first cousin. Jacks my brother.

[Wrote for Luck]

the moral police-force on here is strong. plugger in his element.

would you rather your kids being driven around in Buddy's backseat all day doing 40 over every limit?

or would you rather your kids in Jack's backseat driven around at 0.08? (edit)

I know what I would rather.

[plugger66]

the moral police-force on here is strong. plugger in his element.

would you rather your kids being driven around in Buddy's backseat all day doing 40 over every limit?

or would you rather your kids in Jack's backseat driven around at 0.08? (edit)

I know what I would rather.

Is the answer neither because I cant see who is better off.

[Dr Spaceman]

• Over 0.05
• Speeding
• Using mobile phone
• Doing burnouts
• Putting on makeup while driving
• Etc etc etc

No real point trying to rate them in order of seriousness.

Fact is they're all morally reprehensible if they lead to the serious injury or death of an innocent party.

[saint75]

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.

Buddy has had no previous indiscretions..?? Was there not a drunken incident at a set of light a couple of years ago? There are also other 'incidents', but as per the court order, we cannot discuss or speculate on those.....

No one is arguing about the stupidity of the incidents. The question is whether or not Hawthorn have the 'intestinal fortitude' to do sanction him.

[Rosco]

Worse than Jack's for mine

this is deliberate...jack was just stupid.....

Surely you two are not serious....

Jack much worse.

[Thomas]

Both stupid and irresponsible, Jack broke the club's of conduct and the law by being over .05 going to recovery that morning, Buddy broke the law, what club of conduct did he brake? any way who gives a toss he does not play for us, hawthorn can do what they like.
By the way LLs the speed limit in victoria is 50 KM/Hour unless it is so stated.

[maverick]

Both stupid and irresponsible, Jack broke the club's of conduct and the law by being over .05 going to recovery that morning, Buddy broke the law, what club of conduct did he brake? any way who gives a toss he does not play for us, hawthorn can do what they like.
By the way LLs the speed limit in victoria is 50 KM/Hour unless it is so stated.

Don't think he did brake that was the problem

[Life Long Saint]

By the way LLs the speed limit in victoria is 50 KM/Hour unless it is so stated.

Don't recall stating that it wasn't.

[saintspremiers]

From what I heard yesterday Buddy was done driving down Union St in Brighton East, near his home.

The speed limit should be 60 not 50 given there is a park along one side of the street that is basically a cover over a drain and seldom used.

I've been nabbed a few times doing 60 cause I forgot about the stupid 50 limit.

It's an out and out revenue raising camera location. When I called up about the location, the authorities didn't say it was an accident black spot.

But only an idiot would do 90 down there.

[whiskers3614]

They let anybody in to Brighton these days.

[Spinner]

Speeding is an instance offense. A 1 hour journey and you speed for 15 seconds and get a speeding fine.

In comparison you drink drive for the entire 1 hour and are not in control of what you are doing.



Those even trying to compare the two really surprises me.



Question: Your leaving a party, you have two options. Get into the car of a mate that has been drinking & over the limit... Or get into a mates car that just recently got a speeding fine.You have to choose 1.


I choose the sober mate. Good luck to those in this thread that would obviously take the other option.


Peace out.

[thejiggingsaint]

This would be a whole new debate if (tragically) someone had been injured/killed as a result of the behaviour of these two numbnuts. I find it reprehensible for ANY driver to be speeding or over the limit. simple as THAT!

[The OtherThommo]

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?

Any penalty, applied to anyone, anywhere, anytime uses some sort of standard as a reference to decide the penalty, once a breach has been determined. Sometimes there is a law or regulation common to all in society to use as the standard (Jack's DUI, Buddy's speeding are legally viewed as similar). Sometimes there isn't a common law or regulation to use (Jack's pre-season stuff up). In those instances another standard is referenced, such as an industry code, behavioural clauses in contracts or previously agreed standards determined within a group, such as a club.

The AFL is no different to any any group. They standardise penalties for on field infringements, they standardise contracts, they standardise codes of conducts, they impose salary caps, they apply minimum spends on football departments. The AFLPA demand commonality of treatment for all players, at ALL clubs, because they represent the employees (the players) in the one industry.

I don't give at rat's freckle about your "different" clubs. It's the one industry and both players are employees. In Jack's case the extras were given precisely because he infringed a standard applied to the community. That standard is REPRESENTED by the law in this instance and it was referenced in Jack's case because it was available. Buddy's case is no different and the fact he plays for a different club means diddly squat, unless you are willing to give up all the other standards applied to the AFL clubs and their employees.

That's what my "legal standard crap" has got to do with it - equal treatment applied across a common group using a common standard.

[plugger66]

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?

Any penalty, applied to anyone, anywhere, anytime uses some sort of standard as a reference to decide the penalty, once a breach has been determined. Sometimes there is a law or regulation common to all in society to use as the standard (Jack's DUI, Buddy's speeding are legally viewed as similar). Sometimes there isn't a common law or regulation to use (Jack's pre-season stuff up). In those instances another standard is referenced, such as an industry code, behavioural clauses in contracts or previously agreed standards determined within a group, such as a club.

The AFL is no different to any any group. They standardise penalties for on field infringements, they standardise contracts, they standardise codes of conducts, they impose salary caps, they apply minimum spends on football departments. The AFLPA demand commonality of treatment for all players, at ALL clubs, because they represent the employees (the players) in the one industry.

I don't give at rat's freckle about your "different" clubs. It's the one industry and both players are employees. In Jack's case the extras were given precisely because he infringed a standard applied to the community. That standard is REPRESENTED by the law in this instance and it was referenced in Jack's case because it was available. Buddy's case is no different and the fact he plays for a different club means diddly squat, unless you are willing to give up all the other standards applied to the AFL clubs and their employees.

That's what my "legal standard crap" has got to do with it - equal treatment applied across a common group using a common standard.

So are sayings Jack's previous indiscretion shouldnt have a bearing on the current penalty. I reckon Buddy will get a fine and that is all it deserves.

[bergholt]

The AFL is no different to any any group. They standardise penalties for on field infringements, they standardise contracts, they standardise codes of conducts, they impose salary caps, they apply minimum spends on football departments. The AFLPA demand commonality of treatment for all players, at ALL clubs, because they represent the employees (the players) in the one industry.

I don't give at rat's freckle about your "different" clubs. It's the one industry and both players are employees. In Jack's case the extras were given precisely because he infringed a standard applied to the community. That standard is REPRESENTED by the law in this instance and it was referenced in Jack's case because it was available. Buddy's case is no different and the fact he plays for a different club means diddly squat, unless you are willing to give up all the other standards applied to the AFL clubs and their employees.

i'm not sure i agree with that. the only reason these penalties are being applied at all is because the clubs want to be seen to be doing something. it's PR. each club makes their own determination as to the potential damage caused by not acting and the right course of action from a media management perspective. there's no particular punitive element to these determinations, as far as i can tell, so there's no reason for any "standard" to apply across largely separate organisations with different goals, strategies and management.

the only reason penalties should be in any way related to each other is because no club wants to be seen as "soft" on wrongdoing, but they're separate decisions unless you want the afl to run each club as a puppet.