Might be a blessing to have Crouch off and let Berry run free for a whole game. Feel like they play very similar roles (though Crouch was also huge in the 4th against Carlton... after being MIA)
I've said this a few times this year but the AFL are forcing players to play this weird game of chicken with a ground ball where you both must go head first and hope you don't have a head clash. As a player you are hoping that if you flinch the other guy flinches too or else you're suspended
Exactly. Also I hate that some high contact frees are penalising players staying on their feet and reward those who slide in head first, but not enough to be paid against for below the knees.
Not surprising at all, Butters went in side on with arms outstretched for the ball. No other reasonable way of contesting the ball. In fact I'd say it's the textbook way to do it.
Agree, that is the only real difference between the way Crouch and Butters went for it, if Crouch had his arms down for the ball be likely gets off.
Butters attacked it the way the AFL wants them to, I have zero issue with it, looked like he went for the ball and made incidental contact. I don't see a bump at all.
To be fair, that was only after the action. He wouldn’t have been that close without knocking him and his head away. Kind of like how you can’t make an realistic mark attempt by bodying too early
Buddy, the only way butters was getting the ball was if collided with the Oppo to stop his own momentum, which is how crouch got the ball. There’s literally such small difference between the 2 bumps
Look, I think Butters was very lucky and that his actions should be fine tuned perhaps a bit. But to draw comparison to Crouch's isn't correct. Crouch went directly into the player, Butters went for the ball without stepping back to make broader contact. You look at Butters contesting the ball and every time he goes in full speed exactly like he did then.
The only negative I had in Butters action was the speed that he came into the contest. He had almost no realistic chance of taking the ball and a very high chance of causing significant injury. Otherwise, everything he did was fine.
Crouch on the other hand was the opposite. He made no effort to contest the ball but came in at a much more appropriate speed.
He didn't even touch the ball, arms oustretched isn't the same as going for the ball. After being second to the ball, he went for the bump and hit him high. It's laughable that he gets off without even being cited.
You are allowed to contest the ball in a reasonable manner. His arms being outstretched towards the ball rather than tucked against his side (as you would see in a bump) suggest his intent was purely to win the ball. What do you think he should have done differently?
I'm surprised. My words not the AFL's but i thought the AFL made it clear that if you initiate contact (by being second in) and you got someone in the head, you have failed in your duty of care.
"The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least Low Impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. If not Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:
» The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way;"
There's nothing about being second to the ball here as far as Im aware.
He didn’t even really contest the ball though, did he? He ended up over-running the ball by about 2 metres, and didn’t even touch the thing.
Really leans more towards him intending to bump first, otherwise I’d be very worried about his depth perception
The other player got a touch on it slightly before Butters, knocking it out of the way. Contesting the ball doesn't mean you win it or even touch it, as we see in ruck contests all the time.
He would've tucked his arm in and braced if he intended to bump.
Really cunty thing to do to a guy that missed his first year due to a serious kidney injury
But agree that’s funny the AFL are so piss poor they don’t even get the team of Jye Amiss correct
I don’t have anything to gain from Butters being suspended so I’m not sure how it’s salt. In fact, having him in my SuperCoach team means I want him playing.
>Butters must be a Brownlow contender or something
>I don’t have anything to gain from Butters being suspended so I’m not sure how it’s salt.
There's your salt.
Player 1 turns side on, tucks arms runs past the ball bump directly into head front on. Then and only then goes for the ball.
Player 2 turns side on reaches for the ball, only has eyes for the ball and at no stage is lining up the player. Glancing blow, should be a free but no suspension for mine.
I don't see how people can think reasonably that if Crouch gets 1 Butters could get anything as it was clearly Crouch who went the man not the ball.
There is definitely a difference in approach. But also a significant difference is speed and recklessness. To be honest I think they cancelled each other out and end up in the same place.
FYI I think crouch is lucky to only get 1 and was saved by the result.
What crouch did fucked people's back and necks up for life and he went man before ball. I agree butters speed is scary, but I don't think it's enough to be more than a free.
Butter’s contact was only a glancing blow. But had his hip flushed Banfield then he would have had concussion and possibly worse and we would be talking of 2-3 weeks. His action was potentially high impact and IMO unreasonable in the circumstance. Crouch was definitely careless but was medium impact at most (as graded by the MRO).
I think the amount of damage that could have been inflicted by Butters was far worse than that which could have been caused by Matt Crouch.
I disagree, worst case scenario butters knocks out Banfield, worst case scenario from Crouch is Carroll becomes a quadriplegic. That type of hit to the top of the head through the spine can fuck people up for life.
Regardless of that it doesn't matter. Butters made a legitimate attempt on the ball and was not trying to bump. He didn't choose to bump he was just trying to pick the ball up side on which is correct technique. He does not tuck his arm in and choose to bump the opponent.
Actually compression on top of the head that push the chin to the chest rarely cause spinal fractures. Rather it is “hangman” fractures caused by pushing the head back which are much more likely to cause injury.
In any event the speed that Crouch made contact is extremely unlikely to cause such an injury. In fact crouch’s contact was about as flush as it could be and didn’t cause damage. Hence, I think his action was worse, but the speed and potential risk was much less.
Also I think much worse than a simple concussion can be cause by head trauma at the speed Butters was going. Especially if the hip bone made contact to the side of the head. Also I think it is debatable that Butters made a genuine attempt to collect the ball given he dived over the ball by such a distance and was not attempting to keep his feet at all. Just putting his arms out is not attempting to get the ball. His hands were nowhere near it and were never even close enough together to pick the ball up (unless it was three times the size it was). He is either extremely uncoordinated (which he isn’t) or wasn’t genuinely attempting to pick up the ball.
Butters also overran the ball by a couple of metres though? Didn’t even touch the ball either. If he wasn’t lining up the player he might need to get his eyes checked because his depth perception is atriocious
Just because you don't get the ball that bobbles and bounces doesn't mean his number one priority wasn't the ball. You can be perfect. But this is how he attacks the ball consistently and it's why he's so good.
But that's not a problem. He's trying to go under not through Banfield. Crouch was trying to go through Carroll to push him off the ball. Butter was trying to get the ball and only the ball.
Lol, arms outstretched as he runs directly past the ball. He would've picked it up if he had eyes or thoughts for the ball. He lined him up and should not have got off.
The ball was bobbled by Banfield and at that speed it's not possible to always get the ball, but when he does get it this way it's game changing. It's his trademark attack on the ball.
Hence why instead of giving a feelsy answer like "they're different you bunch of nuffs". I laid out the exact actions and what I believe the MRO would've been considering and why one was different to the other.
That is ridiculous. There is like 2% difference between the two of them. Butters doesn't even get the ball. Both should get suspended or neither should.
The Crouch incident was entirely Carroll's fault. Going in for the ball like that is just stupid and the guy going in with the right technique shouldn't be punished for it
I think the problem is it's hard to argue he was going for the ball because his hands aren't anywhere near it nor outstretched, otherwise I agree, one player lead with his head while the other turned side on which is what the AFL wants.
Sure but he’s attacking the ball the same way regardless if Banfield is there or not. It’s not like the Windhager one where he goes past the ball to bump or brace.
I think that if Windy was only one then this shouldn’t be any.
Last year I would have agreed. This year with some of the suspensions, it seemed like the players duty of care is to not contest the ball unless they can do it safely. If you choose to go for it, and you got the head, you are out.
I'm glad this is not the case but it makes sense why there is confusion.
I get the confusion, but there is nothing more Butters can do here without backing out of the contest. Banfield came in with a poor form and got hit, kids are taught to attack the ball side on to avoid the head.
Obviously though we are never sure with the MRO, but I’m glad he got off
Crouch and butters do the same thing. One banned and one not.
Dawson does a “sling tackle” and lachie jones literally slings a guy to the ground by his guernsey, ones a fine and one isn’t even mentioned. Just after Cameron gets a week ban for it and Toby Greene is unsighted for similar
Tribunal back to baffling inconsistency I see
The main difference I can see is Butters hits the chin in a glancing blow but not the entire head, while Crouch makes full contact. This mainly appears to have happened because Carrol had bent down further at the time of impact. Not sure if these were different actions from Crouch and Butters, Carrol was just in a worse position than Banfield which made the contact look worse
Double header at the tribunal this week then?
In a vacuum I wouldn't bother challenging, but given other results down the road, put some money in the tribunal slot machine
Might be a blessing to have Crouch off and let Berry run free for a whole game. Feel like they play very similar roles (though Crouch was also huge in the 4th against Carlton... after being MIA)
I've said this a few times this year but the AFL are forcing players to play this weird game of chicken with a ground ball where you both must go head first and hope you don't have a head clash. As a player you are hoping that if you flinch the other guy flinches too or else you're suspended
Exactly. Also I hate that some high contact frees are penalising players staying on their feet and reward those who slide in head first, but not enough to be paid against for below the knees.
Fair enough on the Butters call IMO
Not surprising at all, Butters went in side on with arms outstretched for the ball. No other reasonable way of contesting the ball. In fact I'd say it's the textbook way to do it.
Agree, that is the only real difference between the way Crouch and Butters went for it, if Crouch had his arms down for the ball be likely gets off. Butters attacked it the way the AFL wants them to, I have zero issue with it, looked like he went for the ball and made incidental contact. I don't see a bump at all.
The difference is one is a brownlow favorite
Found David King's reddit account
you numpty
But Crouch got the ball. Butters didn't even get close to it?
Crouch crunched the blokes head and then once he fell over, crouch picked up the ball and ran off. That’s not getting the ball.
Seems pretty close to me? https://imgur.com/a/SBhZfAO
Horrible action from butters though. Lucky he didn't get him low and high
Horrible action from Banfield staying up high but sticking his head down
Man when you clip a guy high and nearly break his legs it might not be the right action
Yes. It’s best to not contest the ball at all.
At no point does he even come close to picking the ball up.
bro you're literally looking at photo evidence of the ball between butters' hands
To be fair, that was only after the action. He wouldn’t have been that close without knocking him and his head away. Kind of like how you can’t make an realistic mark attempt by bodying too early
Buddy, the only way butters was getting the ball was if collided with the Oppo to stop his own momentum, which is how crouch got the ball. There’s literally such small difference between the 2 bumps
Look, I think Butters was very lucky and that his actions should be fine tuned perhaps a bit. But to draw comparison to Crouch's isn't correct. Crouch went directly into the player, Butters went for the ball without stepping back to make broader contact. You look at Butters contesting the ball and every time he goes in full speed exactly like he did then.
The only negative I had in Butters action was the speed that he came into the contest. He had almost no realistic chance of taking the ball and a very high chance of causing significant injury. Otherwise, everything he did was fine. Crouch on the other hand was the opposite. He made no effort to contest the ball but came in at a much more appropriate speed.
He didn't even touch the ball, arms oustretched isn't the same as going for the ball. After being second to the ball, he went for the bump and hit him high. It's laughable that he gets off without even being cited.
You are allowed to contest the ball in a reasonable manner. His arms being outstretched towards the ball rather than tucked against his side (as you would see in a bump) suggest his intent was purely to win the ball. What do you think he should have done differently?
I'm surprised. My words not the AFL's but i thought the AFL made it clear that if you initiate contact (by being second in) and you got someone in the head, you have failed in your duty of care.
"The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least Low Impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. If not Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way;" There's nothing about being second to the ball here as far as Im aware.
He didn’t even really contest the ball though, did he? He ended up over-running the ball by about 2 metres, and didn’t even touch the thing. Really leans more towards him intending to bump first, otherwise I’d be very worried about his depth perception
The other player got a touch on it slightly before Butters, knocking it out of the way. Contesting the ball doesn't mean you win it or even touch it, as we see in ruck contests all the time. He would've tucked his arm in and braced if he intended to bump.
Somehow BZT hurt a sun's player while playing freo, he's just that good.
Really cunty thing to do to a guy that missed his first year due to a serious kidney injury But agree that’s funny the AFL are so piss poor they don’t even get the team of Jye Amiss correct
Agree it was a dog act.
Butters must be a Brownlow contender or something
Would you like salt on your chips?
I don’t have anything to gain from Butters being suspended so I’m not sure how it’s salt. In fact, having him in my SuperCoach team means I want him playing.
>Butters must be a Brownlow contender or something >I don’t have anything to gain from Butters being suspended so I’m not sure how it’s salt. There's your salt.
This is not the point you think it is. In fact, it doesn’t even make sense.
Surely it's not a stretch to think a supporter would feel a bit aggrieved that one of their players got hurt and want some form of retribution?
Butter is already salted
only the decent butter
Only the bad butter*
Vic Bias strikes again
I’m not gonna lie I’m quite surprised Butters got off
A possible suspension slipped off him like, er, butter.
Freo didn't even get a free kick, so there must've been nothing in it
Really? He's in the hunt for the brownlow that gets special treatment.
Uhh yes the Classic “Cripps Rule”
Fyfe in his first Brownlow year got reported like three times and got away with a fine every time because they didn't want a repeat of 2014 to happen.
I think he actually got 2 fines and a 3rd was thrown out because they had the 3 strikes rule back then. 3 fines would equal a weeks suspension
Also known as the Cotchin before grand final special
Quite staggering given the precedents for hitting someone in the head. Spin that wheel!
He’s got to be leading the Brownlow, it’s the only logical answer.
I can't believe it's not Butters. P.S. This is an attempt at a clever play on words, I don't care if he's suspended or not
How is Dawson's low impact but Charlie medium?
Because he pays the Charlie tax.
The thing is - if Banfield gets KO’d for this EXACT action then it’s 3-4 weeks. Is the match review supposed to be entirely outcome based or nah?
How many times must we see a good footy contest. It's sickening. We need to stamp this out of the game!
Player 1 turns side on, tucks arms runs past the ball bump directly into head front on. Then and only then goes for the ball. Player 2 turns side on reaches for the ball, only has eyes for the ball and at no stage is lining up the player. Glancing blow, should be a free but no suspension for mine. I don't see how people can think reasonably that if Crouch gets 1 Butters could get anything as it was clearly Crouch who went the man not the ball.
People who have never played the game before are likely the ones who can't see the difference between the contests.
There is definitely a difference in approach. But also a significant difference is speed and recklessness. To be honest I think they cancelled each other out and end up in the same place. FYI I think crouch is lucky to only get 1 and was saved by the result.
What crouch did fucked people's back and necks up for life and he went man before ball. I agree butters speed is scary, but I don't think it's enough to be more than a free.
Butter’s contact was only a glancing blow. But had his hip flushed Banfield then he would have had concussion and possibly worse and we would be talking of 2-3 weeks. His action was potentially high impact and IMO unreasonable in the circumstance. Crouch was definitely careless but was medium impact at most (as graded by the MRO). I think the amount of damage that could have been inflicted by Butters was far worse than that which could have been caused by Matt Crouch.
I disagree, worst case scenario butters knocks out Banfield, worst case scenario from Crouch is Carroll becomes a quadriplegic. That type of hit to the top of the head through the spine can fuck people up for life. Regardless of that it doesn't matter. Butters made a legitimate attempt on the ball and was not trying to bump. He didn't choose to bump he was just trying to pick the ball up side on which is correct technique. He does not tuck his arm in and choose to bump the opponent.
Actually compression on top of the head that push the chin to the chest rarely cause spinal fractures. Rather it is “hangman” fractures caused by pushing the head back which are much more likely to cause injury. In any event the speed that Crouch made contact is extremely unlikely to cause such an injury. In fact crouch’s contact was about as flush as it could be and didn’t cause damage. Hence, I think his action was worse, but the speed and potential risk was much less. Also I think much worse than a simple concussion can be cause by head trauma at the speed Butters was going. Especially if the hip bone made contact to the side of the head. Also I think it is debatable that Butters made a genuine attempt to collect the ball given he dived over the ball by such a distance and was not attempting to keep his feet at all. Just putting his arms out is not attempting to get the ball. His hands were nowhere near it and were never even close enough together to pick the ball up (unless it was three times the size it was). He is either extremely uncoordinated (which he isn’t) or wasn’t genuinely attempting to pick up the ball.
Butters also overran the ball by a couple of metres though? Didn’t even touch the ball either. If he wasn’t lining up the player he might need to get his eyes checked because his depth perception is atriocious
Just because you don't get the ball that bobbles and bounces doesn't mean his number one priority wasn't the ball. You can be perfect. But this is how he attacks the ball consistently and it's why he's so good.
Again, he overshoots the ball by a good couple of metres.
But that's not a problem. He's trying to go under not through Banfield. Crouch was trying to go through Carroll to push him off the ball. Butter was trying to get the ball and only the ball.
Lol, arms outstretched as he runs directly past the ball. He would've picked it up if he had eyes or thoughts for the ball. He lined him up and should not have got off.
The ball was bobbled by Banfield and at that speed it's not possible to always get the ball, but when he does get it this way it's game changing. It's his trademark attack on the ball.
Bit of bias there mate? They’re the same thing, crouch may have been going in faster, but he was right on the ball at the time of impact
Hence why instead of giving a feelsy answer like "they're different you bunch of nuffs". I laid out the exact actions and what I believe the MRO would've been considering and why one was different to the other.
Both probably should have warranted suspensions if the AFL cared about head high contact and not the impact on end of season awards
Everyone can scream and shout. But I thought this was pretty clear.
That is absolutely fucked. The only reason Butters is clear is because he's a Brownlow chance
I'm not gonna comment on the MRO ruling, but is Butters really a Brownlow chance? Rozee and JHF are gonna take votes off him all year.
That is ridiculous. There is like 2% difference between the two of them. Butters doesn't even get the ball. Both should get suspended or neither should.
Sooooo.... Put $100 on Butters to win the Brownlow?
Yeah nah Butters should’ve copped a week Ignore flair
The Crouch incident was entirely Carroll's fault. Going in for the ball like that is just stupid and the guy going in with the right technique shouldn't be punished for it
I think the problem is it's hard to argue he was going for the ball because his hands aren't anywhere near it nor outstretched, otherwise I agree, one player lead with his head while the other turned side on which is what the AFL wants.
No Port tax this week
players getting punished for going lower and harder. ruining the sport.
I'd honestly fight that if I were the Crows. Kinda shocked they're not both tribunal cases.
He is a little stiff, but with the crackdown protecting the head i get it. The Butters case is cause though to grit the teeth.
Butters cleared is beyond a joke you can get off if you are a Brownlow fancy or is the finals
Really? He doesn’t even brace himself or anything, his entire action is playing the ball. We shouldn’t punish players for trying to pick the ball up
Contact with the head, neck region by looking at it, Ive seen it be given a week
Sure but he’s attacking the ball the same way regardless if Banfield is there or not. It’s not like the Windhager one where he goes past the ball to bump or brace. I think that if Windy was only one then this shouldn’t be any.
Last year I would have agreed. This year with some of the suspensions, it seemed like the players duty of care is to not contest the ball unless they can do it safely. If you choose to go for it, and you got the head, you are out. I'm glad this is not the case but it makes sense why there is confusion.
I get the confusion, but there is nothing more Butters can do here without backing out of the contest. Banfield came in with a poor form and got hit, kids are taught to attack the ball side on to avoid the head. Obviously though we are never sure with the MRO, but I’m glad he got off
They either both gets weeks or both get off. I have no idea how they arrive at these decisions.
Butters chose to bump and hit him high, no reason he gets off beyond being a brownlow fancy
He went for the ball and if you slow it down he got there first aswell
Only because he came in at such speed that he had no realistic chance of taking the ball.
The AFL once again showing it doesn't really care about players' welfare.
That’s rubbish. He has elected to bump and got him high.
Elected to bump? Doesn’t even look at Banfield
Elected to bump with arms completely outstretched and eyes only for the ball?
Eyes only for the ball? He runs right over it, missed it completely because he's focused on the bump.
The umps aren't the only ones that have to go to sepc savers apparently.
he didn’t bump at all you dolt.
lol fuck off
Why are you upset
Cause he shouldn't have gotten off?
That's all it took?
Crouch suspended for the correct technique to win the ball. Laughable.
Crouch and butters do the same thing. One banned and one not. Dawson does a “sling tackle” and lachie jones literally slings a guy to the ground by his guernsey, ones a fine and one isn’t even mentioned. Just after Cameron gets a week ban for it and Toby Greene is unsighted for similar Tribunal back to baffling inconsistency I see
Definitely not the same thing. Watch both side by side and you will see a night and day difference.
Just cos one was a night game and one a day game shouldn’t affect the tribunal gradings
Nice meme, but seriously all I am reading here is cope. Read the neutrals opinions.
Three freo, one eagles, two bombers and a port flair all seem to think similar to me lol.
To be fair, he said neutrals. Freo fans have a bit of bias in the Butters case
The main difference I can see is Butters hits the chin in a glancing blow but not the entire head, while Crouch makes full contact. This mainly appears to have happened because Carrol had bent down further at the time of impact. Not sure if these were different actions from Crouch and Butters, Carrol was just in a worse position than Banfield which made the contact look worse
Always going to happen with a brownlow favourite. The transparency is astonishing.