Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

[swansrule100]

i thought the afl was doing everything it could for sydney, giving us flags etc, when do they hold that meeting to make sure its being done?

[Adelaide Swan]

Absolutely disgraceful decision to suspend Mumford.

It's blatantly clear the AFL has one set of rules for the prettyboy stars and everyone else.

Had Mumford not been a Swans player, he'd never have been reported in the first place.

Players like Gary Ablett and Nick Riewoldt are absolute protected species.

Zac Dawson knocking out Tadgh Kennelly should've given Dawson a spell on the sidelines as well.

Had it been the reverse, I'm sure Kennelly would've been suspended by the anti-Swans AFL.

[MadCanuck]

I certainly agree with you that the game is trying to protect its star players but I don't think there is any bias against the SWANS. I am sure there are many followers from other sides who will claim that Goodes is also a protected species and there is a fair bit of evidence to support that opinion. The AFL saw a trend with dangerous tackling techniques and they decided to draw the line when their marquee player was involved. It's too bad we were the other party. It's not fair but that's reality and I think we just move on from here.

[Big Al]

I certainly agree with you that the game is trying to protect its star players but I don't think there is any bias against the SWANS. I am sure there are many followers from other sides who will claim that Goodes is also a protected species and there is a fair bit of evidence to support that opinion. The AFL saw a trend with dangerous tackling techniques and they decided to draw the line when their marquee player was involved. It's too bad we were the other party. It's not fair but that's reality and I think we just move on from here.

It's a little hard to move on when the AFL want to take our great game and @@@@ it up. This issue is bigger than a Swans player being dudded by the Tribunal. This is about an administration who wants all physicality taken away from the sport. They want to grow the game into area that are used to League. My league loving friends are rolling their eyes at me today because they have trouble reconciling the fact that in a body contact sport you could be suspended for the heinous act of throwing someone to the ground. GWS will be a unmitigated disaster unless they can sell the game to people who are used to a tough body contact sport.

Time to retire the fat controller and get someone in who knows what the @@@@ they're doing.

[matty t]

Whilst this helps our cause over at dockerland, it is a rather lame suspension.
With the bump having been outlawed from the game last season after Nick Maxwell floored a west coast player (this in itself should surely be encouraged) it appears that the tackle is next on the list.
A 2 week holiday for simply playing the game is something we have gotten quite used to for the lads in purple and find it odd to see things going the other way.

See you lot in a fortnight.

[jono2707]

I agree with MadCanuck on this one...

I think that the tackle was dangerous and that we should be trying to get that sort of tackle taken out of the game. By 'that sort of tackle' I mean one where both the player's arms are pinned (good) and then the player is slung to the ground so that their head is at risk of making contact with the ground (not so good).

I don't see this as taking the physicality out of the game - tackling techniques have improved a lot in the last x number of years, due in no small part to rugby league and union tackling techniques being learnt in the game (AFL has in turn brought kicking improvements to those codes). Tackling is a much more important part of the game now and many players have strong techniques in this department. What has been a worrying trend, however, is the increased incidence of players being slung to the ground with arms pinned allowing the tackled player little or no protection of the head. It's only a matter of time before someone suffers major head or spinal injuries if this continues.

I agree that there have been several other tackles that should not have gotten away from punishment if Mumford's tackle is seen as being unacceptable - ROK's the week before is a prime example. However it is time that something is done about this sort of tackle and I think the MRP has put a line in the sand, and they've used Mummy as an example. Although it sucks for us, I think these types of tackles need to be monitored closely and removed from the game.

There thats my 10 cents worth....

[Big Al]

Am I the only one who thinks that the tackle was dangerous and that we should be trying to get that sort of tackle taken out of the game?
the game.

Your entitled to your opinion Jono but I do humbly suggest that you go and follow netball because that what you want the game to turn into. If they can get enough people like yourself to watch 'Non contact" AFL then good luck to them. I'll be watching something else.

[stellation]

Anyone know whether we're going to appeal, or what the deadline is for lodging an appeal?

Well if the media department is gently breaking it to us, the Swans members email that just went out included

Back up rucks must stand tall: Kennelly
SYDNEY Swans defender Tadhg Kennelly hopes back-up ruckmen Mike Pyke and Jesse White will benefit from exposure to the main roles this weekend in the absence of the side's premier big men.

Swans ruckman Shane Mumford was suspended by the tribunal for two matches on Tuesday night after failing to overturn his rough conduct charge, while Mark Seaby is currently sidelined with a long-term ankle injury.

Kennelly says former rookie Pyke will embrace the challenge of tackling the Western Bulldogs' ruckmen while White could use the opportunity to reverse his disappointing start to the season.

"[Mike] played eight games last year and it's a big responsibility, obviously," he said.

"He's a player who's got a lot of experience outside of AFL football and he's got a big body and is very competitive and very fit and he did quite well last weekend.

[Jewels]

It's a little hard to move on when the AFL want to take our great game and @@@@ it up. This issue is bigger than a Swans player being dudded by the Tribunal. This is about an administration who wants all physicality taken away from the sport. They want to grow the game into area that are used to League. My league loving friends are rolling their eyes at me today because they have trouble reconciling the fact that in a body contact sport you could be suspended for the heinous act of throwing someone to the ground. GWS will be a unmitigated disaster unless they can sell the game to people who are used to a tough body contact sport.

Time to retire the fat controller and get someone in who knows what the @@@@ there doing.

Summed it all up perfectly Al.
Most of my friends are league followers and all that have seen it just laughed at the suspension.
Grow the game in NSW, this will set it back substantially IMHO.

[Matty10]

Wow this issue certainly has gotten a lot of people worked up....

Am I the only one who thinks that the tackle was dangerous and that we should be trying to get that sort of tackle taken out of the game? By 'that sort of tackle' I mean one where both the player's arms are pinned (good) and then the player is slung to the ground so that their head is at risk of making contact with the ground (not so good).

I thought the Mumford tackle was borderline in terms of 'that sort of tackle' though - which I agree should be taken out of the game. When the rule changes were made, I thought they were just trying to get rid of the ones where the players arms were pinned and their face was planted into the turf. Ablett was thrown to the ground, but it was his shoulder that bore the full brunt, not his face. His head hit the ground from his neck rocking with the impact, not from being directly slammed into the ground.

I don't think the tribunal had much choice once the case went to them (the rule is probably worded in a way that gives no lee-way, ie arms held, thrown to the ground, head contacted ground, etc). But you do wonder how it can be arbitrarily brought to them via the MRP. Was there a different person watching the tapes for our game this week?

[liz]

I .

I think the MRP has put a line in the sand, and they've used Mummy as an example. Although it sucks for us, I think these types of tackles need to be monitored closely and removed from the game.

There thats my 10 cents worth....

Fine, but why did they change the rules again by Monday night when Hayes executed a very similar tackle? Seems like a shifting "line in the sand".

[stellation]

Fine, but why did they change the rules again by Monday night when Hayes executed a very similar tackle? Seems like a shifting "line in the sand".

I agree with that sentiment, liz. I'm not as upset as some folks appear to be about softening up the game, I think that the type of tackle is probably on the fringe for me, but they really need to apply an "all or nothing" approach to reviewing them. I wouldn't have anywhere near as much of an issue with the suspension if we hadn't seen similar tackles last week and again Monday night that received nothing at all. If the tackle on ROK was ajudged as nothing (no reprimand/anything) yet the tackle on GAJ is viewed as 225 points then I really don't know what the tackle is going to be that will fall between the two of them.

[Big Al]

Re: Mummy, downgrade - 2 week ban - swans consider appeal

I agree with that sentiment, liz. I'm not as upset as some folks appear to be about softening up the game, I think that the type of tackle is probably on the fringe for me, but they really need to apply an "all or nothing" approach to reviewing them. I wouldn't have anywhere near as much of an issue with the suspension if we hadn't seen similar tackles last week and again Monday night that received nothing at all. If the tackle on ROK was ajudged as nothing (no reprimand/anything) yet the tackle on GAJ is viewed as 225 points then I really don't know what the tackle is going to be that will fall between the two of them.

All true...

My anger stems from the fact that I've argued for years with my League only mates that Aussie Rules is a tough game and isn't as soft as they make out only for the AFL to give them all the ammo they need to prove that I was full of @@@@ all those years.

[Melbournehammer]

I've been pondering this off and on for most of the day. I think (perhaps hope because at least it would be clear what is going to happen from now on) the answer is (leaving aside the wilder conspiracy theories) this - the brisbane game and the impact of concussion was developing a momentum that the afl and mrp needed to address. Hence the swans game against brisbane was seen as a line in the sand.

As a consequence the impact of the tackle on the player takes a critical level of importance. Therefore the relatively low impact of the hayes tackle meant that there was no need to cite.

I'm not quite sure that I am completely comfortable with that outcome - ie the level of injury determines the charge (ie impact) because the offence is the slinging and it seems to me that it is merely luck whether a person hits their head or not - quite different to spear tackles where there is no luck involved - it was intended to hurt their head but such are the vagaries of having a system which is determined not by the application of the law to the facts but instead by the impersonal allocation of points.

[cruiser]

I've been pondering this off and on for most of the day. I think (perhaps hope because at least it would be clear what is going to happen from now on) the answer is (leaving aside the wilder conspiracy theories) this - the brisbane game and the impact of concussion was developing a momentum that the afl and mrp needed to address. Hence the swans game against brisbane was seen as a line in the sand.

If that were the case the AFL should have given warning to the clubs in the week before last round.