Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Peace
    On the Rookie List
    • Mar 2010
    • 598

    #46
    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

    Comment

    • Damien
      Living in 2005
      • Jan 2003
      • 3713

      #47
      Swans to decide tomorrow morning re: Challenge.

      Mumford may contest ban | Herald Sun

      Comment

      • swansrule100
        The quarterback
        • May 2004
        • 4538

        #48
        white to ruck with pyke perhaps?
        Theres not much left to say

        Comment

        • Plugger46
          Senior Player
          • Apr 2003
          • 3674

          #49
          Originally posted by swansrule100
          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.
          Bloods

          "Lockett is the best of all time" - Robert Harvey, Darrel Baldock, Nathan Burke, Kevin Bartlett, Bob Skilton

          Comment

          • liz
            Veteran
            Site Admin
            • Jan 2003
            • 16770

            #50
            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.

            Comment

            • SwansFan1972
              On the Rookie List
              • Nov 2008
              • 621

              #51
              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!

              Comment

              • SwansFan1972
                On the Rookie List
                • Nov 2008
                • 621

                #52
                Originally posted by Plugger46
                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!

                Comment

                • MadCanuck
                  Warming the Bench
                  • Mar 2009
                  • 138

                  #53
                  Originally posted by liz
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • Lucky Knickers
                    Fandom of Fabulousness
                    • Oct 2003
                    • 4220

                    #54
                    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.

                    Comment

                    • SwansFan1972
                      On the Rookie List
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 621

                      #55
                      Originally posted by 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.
                      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.

                      Comment

                      • ScottH
                        It's Goodes to cheer!!
                        • Sep 2003
                        • 23665

                        #56
                        Originally posted by stellation
                        Was there a suspension, an offer or anything after ROK had a similar tackle laid on him in the Brions game?
                        Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
                        My thoughts exactly!
                        Originally posted by ugg
                        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.

                        Comment

                        • ScottH
                          It's Goodes to cheer!!
                          • Sep 2003
                          • 23665

                          #57
                          Originally posted by Triple B
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • cruiser
                            What the frack!
                            • Jul 2004
                            • 6114

                            #58
                            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.
                            Occupational hazards:
                            I don't eat animals since discovering this ability. I used to. But one day the lamb I was eating came through to me and ever since then I haven't been able to eat meat.
                            - animal psychic Amanda de Warren

                            Comment

                            • ShockOfHair
                              One Man Out
                              • Dec 2007
                              • 3668

                              #59
                              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.
                              The man who laughs has not yet heard the terrible news

                              Comment

                              • SwansFan1972
                                On the Rookie List
                                • Nov 2008
                                • 621

                                #60
                                Originally posted by ScottH
                                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 ....

                                Comment

                                Working...