Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

[Peace]

definitely challenge it, pleading guilty will still put him out for bulldogs and freo.... our two most important games this season so far.

haha i'd love to be a fly on the wall when roosy gives it to em

[Damien]

Swans to decide tomorrow morning re: Challenge.

Mumford may contest ban | Herald Sun

[swansrule100]

white to ruck with pyke perhaps?

[Plugger46]

white to ruck with pyke perhaps?

That would be my preference.

Shocking decision. How did those Melbourne blokes get off for that tackle on Dangerfield? The inconsistency is ridiculous.

[liz]

One newspaper is reporting that this is a new rule brought in this season. I am pretty sure it was introduced at the start of last season. But a bit like the deliberate rushed behinds rule, it is one where blatant instances seem to have been ignored. There was a game late last year involving the Dogs where at least two players were slung like rag dolls towards the fence. One of the players involved (ie being tackled) was Akermanis and I thought it was a tackle with a strong likelihood of really injuring him. I am pretty sure no action was taken against the perpetrator.

So a bit like Scott McLaren suddenly pinging Slattery last week for a deliberate rushed behind, for Mummy to get cited when far far more dangerous tackles have been ignored, just seems plain random.

[SwansFan1972]

Gotta challenge that. Risking three weeks doesn't matter, with week three being against the ruckless hawks anyway. Tackles like it go on every week without a peep, but it seems touching 'precious' appears to be Mummy's biggest sin here.

MRP is kidding itself equating this with Bateman's elbow. What a joke. Where's Leigh Matthews - if he was fair dinkum, would be identifing another protected species - but pretty sure he won't though!

One week at a time panel (Walls, Quarters and Darcy) are pretty much genuflecting about how great the cats are ... I really hope the pussies come a gutser at the business end - don't care who knocks em off!

[SwansFan1972]

That would be my preference.

Shocking decision. How did those Melbourne blokes get off for that tackle on Dangerfield? The inconsistency is ridiculous.

The answer is in your question - they were Melbourne blokes, Dangerfield is an interstater!

[MadCanuck]

So a bit like Scott McLaren suddenly pinging Slattery last week for a deliberate rushed behind, for Mummy to get cited when far far more dangerous tackles have been ignored, just seems plain random.

The AFL is seeing a trend and action must be taken now that the game's star player is being targeted. It's unfair and completely inconsistent but I see little chance that the suspension will be reduced let alone reversed.

[Lucky Knickers]

I think we should take the plea and get a week.. We need to win 2 of the next 3 games IMO and I think we need Mumford on the park.
Gotta love footy. It is so random isn't it.

[SwansFan1972]

I think we should take the plea and get a week.. We need to win 2 of the next 3 games IMO and I think we need Mumford on the park.
Gotta love footy. It is so random isn't it.

He can't get a week - it's 2 with a plea, or 3 if he fights it and loses. Club should be scouring tapes finding similar incidents that have been let slide - there should be dozens!

Hawks have bugger all in their ruck division, so not having him for that game is worth the risk of going after a not guilty overall.

[ScottH]

Was there a suspension, an offer or anything after ROK had a similar tackle laid on him in the Brions game?

My thoughts exactly!

ROK's wasn't as 'obvious', the commentators didn't even note it until it was evident that ROK wasn't getting up.

I'm mad as hell.

I can see no difference at all between ROK's tackle and Ablett's.
At the time yesterday, I didn't think that anything would be made of it. Same tackle, same result.

I hope they take this to the tribunal, and use ROK's as an example.

Disgusting.

And what of Varcoe cleaning up ROK in the Cats game, looked like he lefted an elbow, to me.

The only one I agree with, is the Kelly, a bit rough, but nothing untoward.

[ScottH]

Ch 10 just reported the Swans will fight the charge and are furious that it was even looked at, given the ROK tackle never rated a mention

Good.

[cruiser]

I heard it on ABC radio news while I was driving and I was so pissed off I nearly ripped off car's my steering wheel. I hope the club contests it.

We will be in real trouble this weekend if we lose Mumford.

[ShockOfHair]

Yeah, we have to contest it for the blatant inconsistency. You can't start enforcing new rules halfway through the season.

Plus we really need Mummo.

[SwansFan1972]

Good.

One week at a time also saying its a joke. Most sensible statements to come out of the three of them in a long time!

Walls even suggested openly it is because it was Ablett on the receiving end. Shouldn't make a shred of difference who is being tackled!

... unless it was Stephen Milne .... kidding ....