Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

[Big Al]

Wow Al, that is a REALLY low blow! As far as I can tell, he understands the game, doesn't talk in constant cliches, can string two words together that make sense,can back up most of his opinions with the facts, doesn't screech and most importantly, is an Old Royboy!

His voice does annoy me (personal preference I know) and his views on the Mumford suspension blow the rest of your analysis out of the water. As an Old Royboy I would have though you'd want a higher standard than the one this bloke serves up. Still it's all just personal preference I guess.

[royboy42]

His voice does annoy me (personal preference I know) and his views on the Mumford suspension blow the rest of your analysis out of the water. As an Old Royboy I would have though you'd want a higher standard than the one this bloke serves up. Still it's all just personal preference I guess.

I didn't actually address his views on Mumford..I was addressing the reference to his being the male equivalent of Kellie Underwood. That having been said, I happen to disagree with his Mumford analysis. But i don't resile from my general opinion of his work..it usually is of the highest standard, and I happen to like his voice.

[Primmy]

Apropo absolutely nothing - picture this, Natalie Basingthwait calling a game......

[Big Al]

Apropo absolutely nothing - picture this, Natalie Basingthwait calling a game......

mmm Yes Primmy... I am picturing that right now.

[Triple B]

Maybe not in her current 'condition'.

[Mr Magoo]

I have seriously stewed over this issue for a couple of weeks now and I seriously question whether the match review panel has been externallt influenced in it decision on mumford.

Zac Dawson knocks someones head off with his elbow on the weekend and gets nothing and Mumford makes a legal tackle and gets multiple weeks. Absolutley ridiculous

[Big Al]

Maybe not in her current 'condition'.

Not sure what "condition" she's in. I was thinking of a Rogue Traders Video I once watched.

Ummm... better get back on Topic. Do reckon Mumfords seen the video?

[Triple B]

Not sure what "condition" she's in....

She's got a 'voodoo child' in the oven.

[goswannie14]

Wow Al, that is a REALLY low blow! As far as I can tell, he understands the game, doesn't talk in constant cliches, can string two words together that make sense,can back up most of his opinions with the facts, doesn't screech and most importantly, is an Old Royboy!

You forgot one important fact........he is a Geelong supporter. So his view on the tackle was going to be biased.

[Primmy]

Ever since Lloydy retired, the soubreque of "Precious" has not had a home. It has now. The Precious One, Gary Ablett.

[BSA5]

You forgot one important fact........he is a Geelong supporter. So his view on the tackle was going to be biased.

Whereas we are perfectly imparital.

Of course, even though we are naturally biased, it's such a black and white case that it doesn't make a difference, as the near universal support from neutral fans shows. Even if the AFL did decide that the Mumford tackle was not on (and given a certain interpretation of the rule they put forward a year or two ago about the two motions, you could make that argument, though it would simply mean that that particular interpretation would be a complete and utter blight on the game and would still be reason enough to bitch and moan), there is no excuse for the ROK tackle not to be cited, nor many, many others. The Mumford decision is bewlidering not necessarily because of the ruling, but the fact that it has come from absolutely nowhere.