Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

[hammo]

They should consider taking it to court if there's an avenue to do so, not just for the sake of Mumford but for the sake of the game itself.

They can appeal the decision

[ScottH]

G Ablett protected .... ROK ignored !!

Seems like it.

[ShockOfHair]

Coming through on the wires.
ABC Sport - Mumford cops two-match ban

Any volunteers to ruck against Sandilands?

[annew]

They can appeal the decision

How and what would the consequences be? I reckon they will let it be now and not go any further.

[hammo]

How and what would the consequences be? I reckon they will let it be now and not go any further.

I presume they can argue the penalty is excessive. They may need to produce new evidence however, I'm not sure how it works.

Does anyone know if the Swans spoke to the media outside the Tribunal?

[alison.z]

It makes me so angry because more anything this decision (or even just the initial report) is completely inconsistent ... if you're going to give everyone 3 weeks for this kind of tackle then fine i'll cop it but it came out of nowhere to give a crucial players a massive suspension for a minor incident (albeit involving a "precious" player). Well done MRP on ruining the game for everyone - all AFL supporters are beweildered by this - not just Swans supporters. If they used the basis that Ablett was dizzy/suffeing headaches - what about ROK's concussion last week from a similar incident. Rubbish decision from a rubbish administration that is making me lose faith in the people that run the game i love.

[stellation]

Absolutely ridiculous.

I love how the MRP can say "3 weeks, 2 if you take an early plea" then the tribunal can say "yeah, 3 weeks is wrong- it should have been 2, but now you're here you can't take a plea to get it reduced any further". As absurd as the decision is, if the MRP had got it right (in the tribunal's eyes) upfront and the offer had been "2 weeks, 1 if you take an early plea" I wonder if the Swans would still have contested.

[liz]

Absolutely ridiculous.

I love how the MRP can say "3 weeks, 2 if you take an early plea" then the tribunal can say "yeah, 3 weeks is wrong- it should have been 2, but now you're here you can't take a plea to get it reduced any further". As absurd as the decision is, if the MRP had got it right (in the tribunal's eyes) upfront and the offer had been "2 weeks, 1 if you take an early plea" I wonder if the Swans would still have contested.

Actually, that is often how things work. If a club goes to the tribunal and doesn't contest guilt but successfully argues for a downgrade of the charge, they then get the opportunity to plead guilty to the new charge and still get the benefit of the 25% reduction for an early plea. One can only assume that either the downgraded charge still results in a 2 week suspension with the early plea (but presumably fewer carry forward points) or Mumford refused to plead guilty even to a reduced charge.

[Damien]

I guess we will find out soon if they pleaded guilty to the lower one or not, but if they didn't, I do hope they appeal.

From memory, it's 15,000 upfront and there is no risk of further suspension.

[stellation]

Actually, that is often how things work. If a club goes to the tribunal and doesn't contest guilt but successfully argues for a downgrade of the charge, they then get the opportunity to plead guilty to the new charge and still get the benefit of the 25% reduction for an early plea. One can only assume that either the downgraded charge still results in a 2 week suspension with the early plea (but presumably fewer carry forward points) or Mumford refused to plead guilty even to a reduced charge.

I must admit, you caught me out on my laziness there- I was going to trail off with "of course maybe it works that way and the points total..." but couldn't be bothered

[Damien]

Swans considering appeal.


Mumford fails to overturn ban, considers appeal - AFL.com.au

[Trickster]

Coming through on the wires.
ABC Sport - Mumford cops two-match ban

Any volunteers to ruck against Sandilands?

I could head butt him in the kneecaps

[stellation]

The high contact bit really gets me, if it was judged as Negligent/Medium/Body (and it clearly was not Mumford who made contact with the head) then it would have been a Level 1 offence and only 125 points (less 25% of that for an early plea).

Thinking about it more- if Mumford was ajudged Negligent/Medium/High I really can't see how the tackle on ROK couldn't be viewed as the same?

[JudesaGun]

I haven't see the tackle but I don't understand the "two motions" argument. Does that mean when a tackle is laid, a player can only hold his opponent but can't roll or turn him to bring him to the ground? How does that work if a player is trying to avoid driving into anothers back
and rolls before they both hit the ground?

Seems to me too be an over-legalistic analysis of what was essentially a strong tackle used to free up the ball and take the player to the ground in the ONE motion.

[stellation]

For the nerds out there who want to keep a copy for their own future reference, here's the full AFL explanation of the tribunal system. http://mm.afl.com.au/pv_obj_cache/pv...Booklet-07.pdf