Bucks reported for striking.

[Dale61]

Attempting to spoil the mark, slightly late, a little reckless, but nothing malicious.

A Collingwood player - and Brownlow favoeite - so the tribunal to get heavy.....

"Racetracks are for racing, roads are for getting there."

[junkboy75]

he was clearly going for the spoil, nothing malicious.
I expect him to get off.

"..we flew at them as a hawk to his prey, passed through them in the disordered state in which they were, separated them into two distinct parts and then tacked upon their largest division.." -- Captain Cuthbert Collingwood, 1797

[ramjet21]

for those who were at the game and/or didnt see it on tv, it didnt look too bad. a bit reckless i guess, but he didnt connect with his fist, more his forearm which unfortunately can be sometimes as bad. with ed tv's miked umps the conversation went like this...
scump - 'bucks..im reporting you for striking ok?'
bucks - 'what?!! i was going for the ball! i was going for the ball.' (bucks repeated this several times as his number was taken, shaking his head in disbelief)
scump to andy thompson - 'ok thommo, ive reported bucks for striking you'
thompson - 'bullshit?'(he didnt seem to think it was warranted and actually gave bucks a quick pat in apparent sympathy after his tosser teammates tried to rough bucks up a bit).
thanks to Ch 9(not bloody 10 where we dont get video evidence!), hopefully thompson's reaction and subsequent evidence will actually be taken into account at the tribunal. then again, it is collingwood....
commentators(garry lyon and co, ed pretty much stayed out of it) all thought it was a bit soft to have been reported. abc radio believed he will get off with the exception of brendan gale who, after seeing a replay(from what he says was a 'different' angle) thought he might be in strife. this is coming from a ex tiger however therefore implying he knows little about the game.
hope its not a case of chris grant revisited where bucks polls most votes but ineligible.

[CJ]

I bloody hope i'm wrong BUT I think Bucks will get a week!

Sure he was going for the ball BUT there are Two slight problems 1). He was late in attempting to spoil and 2). He got thompson (I'm not sure if that who it was, correct me if i'm wrong!) on the side of the head when he swung his arm!

I saw it on TV and there were about 100 replays and it just didn't look that good for Bucks!

BUT like I said, I just hope I'm wrong!


"Good Old Collingwood Forever"

[GreatGonzo]

Can someone fill me in? I believe Bucks has a preety good record so far - at least in the last coupla years.

That might get him off. On the other hand I vaguely remember Pebbles ( was it last year) getting two for a similar thing.

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

I have watched it over and over, if you think he will go, watch the replay in slow-motion, it will change your perspective.

He had eyes for the ball, he was attempting the spoil. In fact, he would have spoiled succesfully had the ball not deviated at the last moment.

Im very confident he will get off.

KILL FOR COLLINGWOOD

[PeterWH]

I saw the incident on late night TV .....stayed up specifficallly to see it and I can assure you there is NOTHING in it.I recon that the St.Kilda player deserves an acadamy award for acting.Buks was only spoiling,he was committed and didnt even strick or charge the other player.
If the tribunal put him out.......its all about being picky....Fine him or just let him off with a caution....there was nothing in the incident.

PeterWH
PIES FOR PREMIERS 2002

[ytry4]

LOL at NICK:

He had eyes for the ball, he was attempting the spoil. In fact, he would have spoiled succesfully had the ball not deviated at the last moment. 

'The heart of a club lies not in its location but in each and every one of its fans'
---------------------------------
BLACK & WHITE - For those who bleed Black & White

[paulie]

Listened to triple MMM this afternoon they reckon he will get off apart from bloody dougy who rang in to say he would go must had been half cut the prick.

[MargOZ]

After the long trip home, I stayed up until 2am watching the replay of the match. It was a careless attempt to spoil and Bucks should have known better BUT there was NO intent, other than to spoil. It deserved a free kick and 50 metres but that's it.

I honestly think the umpires and tribunal are forgetting that aussie rules football is a physical game. I think there should simply be fines for unduly rough play (like McLoed, Akermanis, Bucks and other similar minor incidents) and suspensions for serious, deliberate and cowardly acts.

The AFL, umpires, tribunal and stupid tactics like flooding are turning our game into a farce!

GO PIES!
Marg

[MagpieBoy]

Well, i reckon its hard , on us the afl doesnt like us.. thats one thing and secondly, i reckon its hard 2 call, he may get off coz his had a clean record or if the AFL want 2 b pricks they will give him 1 weeks..

Thridly, u have 2 put urselves in2 another by stander becoz we r all one eyed collingwood supporters and of course we r gonna say his gonna get off!! I hope u'z understand where im comin from..

Lets hope he gets off.. Good Luck Bucks

There is ONLY one team,
There is ONLY one club,
There is ONLY one team thats Black And White,
There is ONLY one club that wears the Black and White,
And that is THE MIGHTY MAGPIES!!

GO PIES 2002!!

[ramjet21]

for the benefit of GreatGonzo;
bucks has been reported twice before. 1996(i think) for what as far as i remember was a striking charge and got a week. then in 1998(once again, my memory fails me) he was reported for kneeing but he got off.
there was a very similar incident involving bucks and kellaway a couple of years back where, in an attempt to spoil coming from behind, bucks clocked kellaway in the head - that incident was far worse than this st kilda drama. on that occasion there was intense media pressure he should get a couple of weeks. he wasnt reported during the game and although it looked terrible, they didnt end up even charging him on video. the more replays ive seen of it the more confident i am however there have been a spate of these type of reports lately, most of them getting 1-2 weeks. but if darcy can get off for saying he was angry people had questioned his reputation, bucks should walk.

[Brown26]

Bucks will go

there was nothing in the incident, nothing at all, it was a free-kickable offense, ala Lloyds mallicious late arrival against Cloke when Cloke got the 50m, but less so, a 50 would've been debatable.

Remember Anthony Rocca got one similar a last year or maybe the year before, against Freo?? Query opposition but he got two weeks for what was basically a late spoil.

Bucks will go cause he wears the black and white, and the tribunal doesn't want to make the umpires look as foolish as they are, and because of the media beat up of Eddie and Micks comments.

Poor Bucks, and poor AFL when Bucks wins the brownlow by 20 votes, and can't receive it.

Pricks.

Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[shannon]

Nathan Buckley has had a good past history but if i remember right and dont hold me on this im pretty sure he got reported but he got off. There was nothing in it but you know the afl.
Number 1- Its Collingwood
Number 2- Its our key player
Number 3- Its a brownlow favorite

They are the 3 things the dickheads at the afl will look at and it wont look good after wards

[vamp7]

I think Bucks will get off, he just is not that kind of
player. Shorly the nuts know that, but eddie will have
PERRY MASON an more there anyway.

GO PIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!