AFL Response to MJ Fifty

[hird_god]

From Australian Associated Press this afternoon ...

SYDNEY, May 8 AAP - The AFL has moved swiftly to stop any debate on sledging after Essendon's Mark Johnson was wrongly slapped with a 50m penalty for calling Sydney's Amon Buchanan a "weak dog".

The incident occurred midway through the tense final quarter of the Swans' narrow win over the Bombers at Telstra Stadium at Saturday night, 13.16 (94) to 14.4 (88).

Johnson had been penalised for a tackle on Buchanan on the back edge of the centre square and the young Swan stayed down after being accidentally poked in the eye.

A furious Johnson stood over Buchanan, told him to get up and called him a "weak dog" for staying on the ground.

With the match in the balance, umpire Martin Ellis imposed a 50m penalty after telling an astonished Johnson: "You can't call a player a weak dog".

Buchanan kicked a point from the resulting play.

The AFL today reacted quickly to Ellis's decision and said he had blundered despite umpires being allowed to award a 50m penalty for players abusing opponents.

"The umpiring department met this morning and deemed it was a mistake and it should not have been a 50m penalty," an AFL spokesman said.

Bombers coach Kevin Sheedy was bemused by the decision, assuming that Johnson must have sworn at Buchanan.

The four-time premiership-winning coach felt that even swearing shouldn't have resulted in a 50m penalty.

"You would not want to give a free kick for every time a person swears on the footy field, they are not at the nuns' convent if you understand what I am saying," he said.

"We don't want to take our game to the nuns' convent so as far as I am concerned there are areas of the game which need to be looked at."

Sheedy couldn't help delivering a cheeky dig at the AFL for the incident.

"At the end of the week, it has been an ugly week for the AFL and for Sydney, so maybe it was a nice present," he quipped.

[Schneiderman]

Re: AFL Response to MJ Fifty

Originally posted by hird_god
With the match in the balance, umpire Martin Ellis imposed a 50m penalty after telling an astonished Johnson: "You can't call a player a weak dog".

I just enjoyed the look of utter amazement on his face. Have always thought he was a bit of a showboat, so the penalty had me in stitches (even though it shouldn't have been paid).

[gazza]

WEAK DOG IS ONE OF THE WORST SLURS THAT CAN BE USED,ESPECIALLY TO A PERSON INVOLVED IN A CONTACT SPORT,IT QUESTIONS THE INTEGRITY OF A PLAYER.I BELIEVE IT WAS A CORRECT DECISION.
MANY PLAYERS WOULD RATHER BE SUBJECTED TO ALL THE SWEAR WORD KNOWN THAN TO CALLED A WEAK DOG.
I THINK JOHNSON SHOULD APOLOGISE AND THOSE WHO DEFEND HIS COMMENTS OBVIOUSLY HAVE LED A VERY SHELTERD LIFE AND DON'T REALL Y UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS.IF YOU SAID THIS INSIDE A JAIL YOU WOULD NEED TO BE READY FOR A FIGHT OR EVEN STABBED

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I just enjoyed the look of utter amazement on his face.

Classic, look !!!!!

Made up for a few crap decisions earlier.

[ScottH]

'Weak dog' penalty wrong - AFL

'Weak dog' penalty wrong - AFL

Former Carlton coach David Parkin blamed the use of microphones on umpires for the furore, believing it had caused umpires to be extremely conscious of comments being broadcast.

[Jimmy C]

It makes up for the 50m penalty that should have been awarded to Leo after that butt-munch Lloyd rode him into the turf with his hands around Leo's head (AFTER Leo took the grab). He should be cited for that one imo.

[Charlie]

Meh. Craig Bolton would have been laughing his head off.

[Wil]

That is an outrage!

"Weak Dog"!?! What kind of a poor insult is that? What does it mean? Don't these football players get any kind of education. I demand better insults! He deserved a 50 for that howler...

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Wil
That is an outrage!

"Weak Dog"!?! What kind of a poor insult is that? What does it mean? Don't these football players get any kind of education. I demand better insults! He deserved a 50 for that howler...

[ugg]

The umpire apparently sanitised the comment because he knew his words were being televised.

[Thunder Shaker]

I was the first to comment on that interesting decision in the match day thread, but I'll add a few notes here.

The look on MJ's face was priceless. It was so wonderful that Channel 10 replayed the closeup twice just for the facial expression.

The channel 10 telecast had the umpire saying that MJ can't call his opponent a "weak dog", but Channel 10 made several comments along the lines that the actual language used by MJ was stronger than that and that they could not repeat what he actually said (it wasn't very audible on the telecast so I didn't catch it). The impression I got was that some form of expletive was used.

I agree that the decision was soft, as a minimum he should have got a warning first. However, if the expletive theory is correct, then perhaps the umpire was making sure that further on-field expletives didn't get broadcast.

There were other interesting umpiring decisions (the one that I remember was a Swans player getting pinged for holding the ball with an opponent reaching for the ball over his shoulder while sitting on his back).

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
There were other interesting umpiring decisions (the one that I remember was a Swans player getting pinged for holding the ball with an opponent reaching for the ball over his shoulder while sitting on his back).

That was either LRT or Bevan (can't recall but I think the former). On the ground and clearly dragged it in. Was in a tough position and a Tim Lane noted couldn't really get it out with someone lying on him and with a high tackle. However, dragging the ball in will nearly always get pinged first before the other infringements.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
However, dragging the ball in will nearly always get pinged first before the other infringements.

That's the impression I got at the time - that the ball was dragged in first so that's what must be penalised. He was a bit stiff though; it's quite hard to get the ball out when an opponent is sitting on you.

[ScottH]

Twas LRT and in his favour, as TL also pointed out, he couldn't even see the ball, with a player on his back, around his neck, and in his face.

[NMWBloods]

It's tough in that it's difficult to get the ball out in that case (particularly in certain cases when the opposition push the ball un under you) but the umpires' view will be don't drag the ball in under you in the first place.