Buckley - gone?

[Sly]

I think Nathan will be very, very lucky to escape a striking-charge on Duncan Kellaway, (well, I'm pretty sure it was Kellaway). Considering Hilton got reported for a similar incursion in striking Tarrant, Pebbles got two weeks for his misdemeanor against Ellis and that sort of indiscretion seems to be the "in-thing" with reports at the moment, Buckley will be lucky not to be sighted on Video.

Particularly since Channel 7 news replayed the incident (no kidding) 5 from every angle they had.

[CJ]

I agree with you sly.

I think that Bucks will be sitting "in the outer" for two weeks.

Hey, it makes ya wish that he would do the job properly.

------------------
"Good Old Collingwood Forever"

[AlfAndrews]

He needs a couple weeks off to get over his injury problems. It doesn't matter anyway. We couldn't beat West Coast or Geelong if we started now, with or without Buckley. Might as well lose without him as with him.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[ytry4]

I personally do not think Bucks will be rubbed out. Firstly, his fist was very close to the ball but just mistimed it. It only looks bad becuase he had a big swing and was a bit late. The other thing is that Bucks has had a perfect record at the tribunal, so they should forgive him for that. Having said that though, there would be a fair nervous punters out there sweating on the outcome of this!

GO PIES

[AlfAndrews]

He will go. No risk. The Tribunal does give a stuff about whether an action is deliberate or not.
Also, Bucks does not have a perfect record at the tribunal. He copped one match for tripping in Round 21 against Adelaide in 1996.
He'll get off with one match if he pleads guilty.

------------------
**floreat pica**

[AlfAndrews]

Oops. Typo.

I meant the tribunal DOESN'T give a stuff whether an action is deliberate.

[*miss_magpie*]

all i have to say is that for all of the collingwood fans and players, i hope the buckster is still in our side for this weeks game against west coast! Without him we have little chance of defeating the eagles!

[ytry4]

I told you so! Go Bucks...

[AlfAndrews]

One of the great things about being a pessimist is that when you're wrong it's a bonus.

But, really. They are so bloody inconsistent with these incidents.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Buckley would get rubbed out, but that doesn't mean that I thought he deserved to get rubbed out. It's just that Anthony Rocca got 2 matches for absolutely nothing so I just assumed that Bucks would get the same treatment. If anything, the Bucks incident was worse than the Rocca incident.

Really, neither incident should have been reported. In both cases they were attempting to spoil and made accidental contact.




------------------
**floreat pica**

[Neil Appleby]

Celebrating a family party when the Bucks result came through; we toasted a totally incompetent system.
Are they blind or just totally corrupt?
Bucks must be too far in front in the Brownlow to risk the embarrassment.
I mean really...that sloppy work deserved 2 weeks...I'm delighted they didn't but A.Rocca must really be wondering about it don't you think???
For my money both were guilty of sloppy, careless and DANGEROUS tackles.
Who could possibly ever predict this system?

[This message has been edited by Neil Appleby (edited 15 May 2000).]

[Sly]

Think you're spot on, Neil. I think the AFL want to avoid the potential embarrassment of yet another ineligible player winning the Brownlow, so they overlooked the incident.

So does this give Bucks the license to walk into any match as a professional hitter?

Seeing the incident again, I noticed that he actually contacted with the ball and spoiled it before connecting with Kellaway. Wonder if the fact that he got fist to ball made a difference, as Pebbles never got close.

Still thought he might get 2 weeks, anyway, though.

Will have to consider this a change in fortunes.

[Spidergirl]

Thank god Bucks got off and the legendary Spider Everitt!!! Still i don't reckon Bucks will get the brownlow i reckon he will come second and Woey (Dees) will get it!

#8 RoCkS
Go RiCky!

[ytry4]

The difference between the Rocca incident and the Bucks incident is that Rocca was nowhere near the ball, whereas Bucks was. Buckley missed the ball by only a few centimetres...