Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

[Melbournehammer]

it is easy to see why the afl brought in the rule. But in practice it is difficult to determine a dangerous tackle from a fair tackle. In my mind the dangerfield tackle was the classic example of what represents danger in afl - it was a gang tackle straight out of rugby league designed to drive player and ball into the ground. The afl wants to stop that sort of thing.

However mumford did what a big man should do when they catch a little man - throw him into the ground. In circumstances where ablett frequently breaks tackles by his low centre of gravity taking him off the ground struck me as not an inappropriate action. The fact that his head hit the ground was not the intent nor was it even reckless - if that were the case there would be the prospect of every player being charged where a tackle is made and an injury to the head sustained - because there is always a chance that a person's head will be injured in a tackle.

The maguire incident struck me as the most bizarre application of a "thou shalt not hurt an opponent's head'.

I am and have always been frustrated with umpiring in afl and the impact umpiring and silly interpretations have. Last night to my mind there was no doubt whatsoever that jarrod waite used both hands in the back of an opponent and he pushed off to elevate, steady and mark. All of the stuff about putting a hand in the back that got barry so frustrated for so long when half the time he did no more than place a hand in the back to protect himself from the player backing into his space just comes in and out of the game. Goodes on the weekend used his hip to protect where the ball was going to land and a free kick was paid - allegedly because the ball was more than 5 metres away - has anyone actually watched how often forwards push their opponent before they even start a lead to get separation - but that is simply never called.

anyway rant over - feels a little better

[TheHood]

After seeing the tape many times, a couple of thoughts:

1 - Ablett drops/attempts disposal/whatever the ball in the tackle, but Mummy would not know this, so disregard any "late" arguement that may come up.
2 - Mummy grabs Ablett by the hips (like we're all taught way back in the Under 12's), and spins him as the momentum shift happens - Ablett is a moving force, after all. That energy has to go somewhere.
3 - Mummy's hands do not move up Ablett's body as he hits the ground. As such, Mummy is driving Ablett's hip into the ground, on the side. He is not pushing in the back.
4 - Similarly to 3, because Mummy's hands don't move he is not driving Ablett's head into the ground ala a 'spear tackle'. Ablett's head hits the ground after his shoulder because inertia's a bitch. (see also Liz's post re: Rok, above)
5 - The umpire on the scene had no problem with it.

If this doesn't get thrown out by someone then I don't know what to think. I have no doubt it hurt Ablett, but so what? Plenty of players get legitimately hurt every week. It goes with the territory and the game. The players know it, the fans know it, it seems only the MRP are clueless.

Great call on all points. I saw the O'Keefe incident against the Lions and thought that was a greater intention to harm. But again, there is no intention to slam his head and cause concussion. Is there to be a new tackling rule where the upper body isnt allowed to hit the turn to avoid head injuries?

If this charge isn't thrown out then what hope is there for players who work hardest to make legal tackles that also send a message?

[Glenn]

If the charge isn't thrown out, you may as well change the rules so a player just has to be touched to be tackled, after all if a player tackles someone and takes them to ground it will come up to the MRP.

[Jewels]

They've just announced they are contesting it!

[CJK]

Swans gonna stick it to 'The Man'

[ScottH]

I hope they don't need to use the pics this time.

[liz]

They've just announced they are contesting it!

Not only that, but they are also flying him down to Melbourne. They usually only do that when it's really serious.

[SwansFan1972]

Not only that, but they are also flying him down to Melbourne. They usually only do that when it's really serious.

It's a good idea - make the tribunal look Mumford in the eye and tell him that tackles such as that one are out. They won't be able to do it - the tackle should never have been cited and the Swans should be in and out of the Tribunal rooms in under five minutes.

They should take a tape of Lenny Hayes from last night too - he laid an identical tackle, apart from the players involved being similarly sized. If the tribunal sticks with the ban, you might as well say a big bloke should never risk tackling a small one.

[ShockOfHair]

Not only that, but they are also flying him down to Melbourne. They usually only do that when it's really serious.

I'm trying to imagine Mummo in economy class....

[msb]

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!

I'd rather them than collingwood winning the flag!

[msb]

Seems a lot of the media are up in arms about the deicision.

Luke Darcy said it was ridiculous.He's on the Rules Committee.
Big Ed agreed.

So did dermie brereton on SEN last night, he said it was just a tackle FFS!

[Big Al]

Should be the first tribunal hearing to go like this:

Tribunal: Ok counsel for Mr Mumford, what is your defense.
Counsel: The charge you have before sir is total bull@@@@.
Tribunal: We agree, Charge dismissed.
Tribunal: Counsel for the AFL can you stay behind we would like a word.

[Bas]

I have a bad feeling that for them to save face they will let it stand and he will get 3 weeks.

[DST]

I have a bad feeling that for them to save face they will let it stand and he will get 3 weeks.

The MRP and Tribunal are two seperate independent bodies with different people.

Therefore, there is no inference that the tribunal will want to punish Mummy with 3 weeks just so the MRP can save face.

If anything the Tribunal has shown to be more lienent towards the player than the MRP has even been over the course of the new system.

DST

[Reggi]

The two weeks stand Source 3AW was downgraded but stands