Pathetic.
Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal
Collapse
X
-
Moving on....... we now go into 2 big games against the Dogs and Freo without 1 & 2 Ruckman. Pyke and Currie anyone????"We talked five times. I called him twice, and he called me twice." :confused: :confused: :confused: :D
Eddie McGuireComment
-
Re: Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal
The AFL can get @@@@@@. The soft @@@@ game they're turning this game into will be a laughing stock in Western Sydney.
RIP Aussie Rules.
Time to watch more league where your allowed to play like men...And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC
Here it is Again! - Huddo SENComment
-
-
mumford should of done a better job of it if he was gonna do time.
Time to sticky tape seaby up and send him out there i reckonTheres not much left to sayComment
-
absolute joke and pathetic to say the least. I hope we appeal it,
The AFL is trying seriously hard to ruin the physicality that makes AFL the great game it is. Soon it will be more futile than Netball- why not just give Ablett his own exclusion zone of 5 metres diameter so that he can always do what he wants when he wants (Saying that he invariably has a voluntary one when he plays us anyway!)"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."Comment
-
Comment
-
Does the appeal carry any extra penalties?
I hope they do appeal Watching OTC tonight and some of the other examples as a minimum it will provide clarity to players for the rest of the year.Comment
-
Obviously being a Swannies fan site, we could all be accused of being one eyed and fair enough. BUT just about EVERYONE excluding the match review panel sees this as an absolutely discraceful decision. The lack of consistency is frightfully outrageous. We have to appeal not just for us but for the benefit of every AFL player and the game in general.Swannies for life!Comment
-
"The tribunal's legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson SC, said Mumford's tackle consisted of two separate actions - pinning Ablett's arms and then rolling and flinging him to the ground.
He deemed the ruckman's second action as unnecessary and said it was "inherently dangerous to with force turn an upper torso with your own body and slam into the ground"."
It's official. You now can't tackle a player to the ground. Action 1. Wrapping the player up. Action 2. Bringing them to ground. That's what Jeff Gleeson is saying here. @@@@ I'm a law student and I could defeat a Senior Counsel on that rubbish. The intention of the double action rule was to stop players being thrown or ground into the dirt. Mumford's was just a simple hard tackle.Comment
-
Just went and did some Googling to see if I can find how the AFL's laws describe where a tackle is rough conduct. Haven't really found anything conclusive but did find this article from Patrick Smith from a few weeks ago. My guess is that Smith thinks Mumford's tackle should be a suspendable event, which is pretty much the view Brian Taylor gave on OTC just a short while ago. But as Smith points out in this article (and Healy focussed on on OTC), it is not an interpretation that has been applied by the AFL up to this weekend. I guess most of us would be less ropable if any of the numorous other examples of similar tackles - including the one barely 24 hours ago - had been treated the same way.
Hurtling to a time when speed kills | The AustralianComment
-
I agree Matt, we will have to protest this to the highest level, even if Mummy gets done over again. This is just petty and they know it. I hope the Swans get in Barry Hall's advocate back in 2005, and why the bloody hell haven't they to start with (assuming they didn't, I have to blow off steam in some direction), and charge at full tilt.If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhoodComment
Comment