Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

[SwansFan1972]

I've been pondering this off and on for most of the day. I think (perhaps hope because at least it would be clear what is going to happen from now on) the answer is (leaving aside the wilder conspiracy theories) this - the brisbane game and the impact of concussion was developing a momentum that the afl and mrp needed to address. Hence the swans game against brisbane was seen as a line in the sand

As a consequence the impact of the tackle on the player takes a critical level of importance. Therefore the relatively low impact of the hayes tackle meant that there was no need to cite. ..

If that's the case, then we've got the rough end of the pineapple in both games. Our boys copped the beltings against the lions, and then get made an example of the following week. As for the outcome on the player injury wise, Ablett played out the game like he had his own ball. If they are now going to take the approach that the effect on the target is paramount, rather than the action leading to it, then the whole issue of tackling becomes a complete lottery - as you say, it is purely down to luck as to whether someone gets hurt or not.

[Lucky Knickers]

Whilst this helps our cause over at dockerland, it is a rather lame suspension.
With the bump having been outlawed from the game last season after Nick Maxwell floored a west coast player (this in itself should surely be encouraged) it appears that the tackle is next on the list.
A 2 week holiday for simply playing the game is something we have gotten quite used to for the lads in purple and find it odd to see things going the other way.

See you lot in a fortnight.

Cheers Matty - Would appreciate some purple hazing of the Pies on the weekend please!

[Doctor J.]

Whilst this helps our cause over at dockerland, it is a rather lame suspension.
With the bump having been outlawed from the game last season after Nick Maxwell floored a west coast player (this in itself should surely be encouraged) it appears that the tackle is next on the list.
A 2 week holiday for simply playing the game is something we have gotten quite used to for the lads in purple and find it odd to see things going the other way.
See you lot in a fortnight.

So true. Maybe we've become Freo.

[Jewels]

I've been pondering this off and on for most of the day. I think (perhaps hope because at least it would be clear what is going to happen from now on) the answer is (leaving aside the wilder conspiracy theories) this - the brisbane game and the impact of concussion was developing a momentum that the afl and mrp needed to address. Hence the swans game against brisbane was seen as a line in the sand.

As a consequence the impact of the tackle on the player takes a critical level of importance. Therefore the relatively low impact of the hayes tackle meant that there was no need to cite.

I'm not quite sure that I am completely comfortable with that outcome - ie the level of injury determines the charge (ie impact) because the offence is the slinging and it seems to me that it is merely luck whether a person hits their head or not - quite different to spear tackles where there is no luck involved - it was intended to hurt their head but such are the vagaries of having a system which is determined not by the application of the law to the facts but instead by the impersonal allocation of points.

Understand what you're saying but it still doesn't answer the question as to why Lennie Hayes wasn't reported for his tackle on Murphy on Monday night.

[ugg]

MRP's night off?

[Jewels]

MRP's night off?

Only explaination that fits!

[Matimbo]

I've been pondering this off and on for most of the day. I think (perhaps hope because at least it would be clear what is going to happen from now on) the answer is (leaving aside the wilder conspiracy theories) this - the brisbane game and the impact of concussion was developing a momentum that the afl and mrp needed to address. Hence the swans game against brisbane was seen as a line in the sand.

As a consequence the impact of the tackle on the player takes a critical level of importance. Therefore the relatively low impact of the hayes tackle meant that there was no need to cite.

I'm not quite sure that I am completely comfortable with that outcome - ie the level of injury determines the charge (ie impact) because the offence is the slinging and it seems to me that it is merely luck whether a person hits their head or not - quite different to spear tackles where there is no luck involved - it was intended to hurt their head but such are the vagaries of having a system which is determined not by the application of the law to the facts but instead by the impersonal allocation of points.

Hammer, re your criticism thath the level of injury determines the charge, there is another perspective on this. In our broader legal system, if you are at fault in a car accident the seriousness of the charge against you is related to the seriousness of injury to the other party e.g. if you just cause damage to the other car you may only be charged with negligent driving and face a fine, but if you cause the death of someone else the charge would likely be culpable driving which involves much more serious penalties. You then have to argue that your actions did not consititute culpable behaviour to get the penalty reduced. Hence, it could be argued that the AFL's approach is consistent with broader legal principles.

This doesn't change the fact that their application of these principles is very inconsistent in both who gets charged or not and in the penalties they cop. So I still am as annoyed as you over what happened to Mumford. I believe that fact it happened to Ablett had a major influence. Bit the same as the sort of witch-hunt that would happen if the person you kill in the car accident was someone famous or a child for example.

[giant]

I agree with MadCanuck on this one...

I think that the tackle was dangerous and that we should be trying to get that sort of tackle taken out of the game. By 'that sort of tackle' I mean one where both the player's arms are pinned (good) and then the player is slung to the ground so that their head is at risk of making contact with the ground (not so good).

I don't see this as taking the physicality out of the game - tackling techniques have improved a lot in the last x number of years, due in no small part to rugby league and union tackling techniques being learnt in the game (AFL has in turn brought kicking improvements to those codes). Tackling is a much more important part of the game now and many players have strong techniques in this department. What has been a worrying trend, however, is the increased incidence of players being slung to the ground with arms pinned allowing the tackled player little or no protection of the head. It's only a matter of time before someone suffers major head or spinal injuries if this continues.

I agree that there have been several other tackles that should not have gotten away from punishment if Mumford's tackle is seen as being unacceptable - ROK's the week before is a prime example. However it is time that something is done about this sort of tackle and I think the MRP has put a line in the sand, and they've used Mummy as an example. Although it sucks for us, I think these types of tackles need to be monitored closely and removed from the game.

There thats my 10 cents worth....

I don't particularly disagree with this - many will remember Paul Williams' shoulder being broken in a slam tackle was that was shameful (the perpetrator - Didak/Holland? - got away scott free). I don't see this tackle as an example of this tho - those tackles typically require a pinning of the arms and using the tackled player's momentum to drive him into the ground. That's not what has happened here where Ablett has been properly tackled and then brought to the ground (albeit forcefully) in the one motion. You see this type of tackle every week (just not normally by 110kg behemoths) - I think the AFL will quietly tiptoe away from this decision and we won't here from it again.

[Kirkari]

...As for the outcome on the player injury wise, Ablett played out the game like he had his own ball....

The "Little Master" (add two syllables here) took every opportunity when he knew the cameras would be on him to act dazed and confused - before free kick, after goals..., and just couldn't wait to tell the interviewer that his head was still spinning in the after match interview. What a suck.

[SwansFan1972]

The "Little Master" (add two syllables here) took every opportunity when he knew the cameras would be on him to act dazed and confused - before free kick, after goals..., and just couldn't wait to tell the interviewer that his head was still spinning in the after match interview. What a suck.

Should suggest to Bomber Thompson that someone knock little Gary up against a wall or something similarly hard before every game ... if he plays like that dazed and with head spinning, he would be far more valuable to them in that state each match!

It is a shame that for as great a player as he is, there are a few smelly little clouds that darken his sky - seeks out the frees a bit too much, is keeping his club dangling over what he might do with the rest of his glorious career, and was tearing up when he missed out on the brownlow a few years back. Makes one wonder if team success really floats his boat any more, of if being the star of his own show is more important.

[ScottH]

Told you Luke Darcy was pissed off.

The legal terms such as ?negligent?, ?reckless? and ?intentional? that form the framework of the tribunal system would be laughable, to my mind, if their consequences weren?t so serious. This is because the act of taking the field in an AFL game requires you to be all of the above: reckless, negligent, and intent enough to commit to a contest without regard for your own safety.

The consistency with which we are suspending players on these grounds has become an alarming trend.

From the comfort of the commentary box it?s very easy to forget the incredible duress that players are under at any given moment in the game, and the same goes for the match review panel. Do they consider the lung-burning, gut-busting pain and physical stress that comes with competing at this level when handing down their penalties?

Slowing incidents down, watching them frame by frame on the tribunal monitor and casually discussing the merits of reasonable force, alternative options and negligent contact are often a world away from the chaos of actually playing AFL.

Mumford penalty was too harsh - AFL.com.au

[giant]

If that were the case the AFL should have given warning to the clubs in the week before last round.

I absolutely agree with this - this decision has come completely out of the blue and we've been shtumped as a result.

[giant]

Told you Luke Darcy was pissed off.




Mumford penalty was too harsh - AFL.com.au

Excellent artilce.

[Matty10]

Finally we get a well-written article that would help sway public opinion - I just wish this had come out on Monday.

[Yuri H]

Wait, someone in the media defending a Swan? Hallucinations! I'm having hallucinations! I must be feverish ...