MRP: 2 weeks for Mumford (what a joke!!)

[ernie koala]

Shouldnt Corey have got 2 as well ? It was the same tackle wasnt it?

It was a worse looking tackle for sure. He slung him around his hip and all but pile drived into the ground.

Only difference, player wasn't injured...they definitely grade these tackles based mainly on injury outcomes. Which is wrong IMO. Intent should carry more wait.

[Captain]

Pathetic. Massive worry for the game.

Becomming way too soft.

[bennyfabulous]

What if a player is able to fake the injury for a free kick?
What if hypothetically he is clever enough to figure out that he has been caught in one of these tackles and can get a guy rubbed out for 3 weeks to benefit his team in a coming final by faking?.

How would the AFL police this? People lie and people cheat.

Seems ridiculous to take the word of a player/doctor when it could be in their best interest to not tell the truth to gain advantage.

[DST]

What if a player is able to fake the injury for a free kick?
What if hypothetically he is clever enough to figure out that he has been caught in one of these tackles and can get a guy rubbed out for 3 weeks to benefit his team in a coming final by faking?.

How would the AFL police this? People lie and people cheat.

Seems ridiculous to take the word of a player/doctor when it could be in their best interest to not tell the truth to gain advantage.

It has nothing to do with faking anything for the free kick.

The evidence presented to the Match Review Panel is from the doctor's report, completed and signed off by the club doctor after the game.

In this instance Ellard left the field, went through a concussion test and ultimately spent the night in hospital under observation.

If he had been faking a concussion then the doctors report filed after the game and given to the MRP would have said so and Mummy would not have had a case to answer in all likelyhood.

DST

[DST]

Seems ridiculous to take the word of a player/doctor when it could be in their best interest to not tell the truth to gain advantage.

Oh, and each medical report is logged and peer reviewed by an independent board of doctors appointed by the AFL as well.

Not too mention the fact that these doctors are working under the normal duty of care rules and are subject to the usual oversights by state government and professional medical boards, just like when you and I go and see a doctor.

All of the team doctors work in private practice and there is no way one of them is going to put their reputation and professional careers on the line to report a fake injury in a medical report or fail in their duty of care to a player in their care.

DST

[Steve]

The Joel Corey one was the worst of the three, in terms of the actual tackle. But the focus on these tackles won't change so Mummy has to learn.

Given it's all about impact, and nothing to do with intent (or whether it's accidental/incidental), it's surprising Podsiadly got off for his hit on Bartel. High contact, high impact, and probably negligent - that's 3-4 weeks.

[johnno]

Mumford has been suspended for basically being too strong.

[Cpt. Kirk]

The people that make the MRP video failed hard as well with the hardingham incident they have put in the wrong video, it clearly shows a hurley incident with firitto in a marking contest.

[Bloody Hell]

Was watching a replay looking for this tackle, and he did a sling tackle in the 3rd qtr 16:30, that looked much worse than the one he was suspended for, came down at a much sharper angle, but didn't knock the guy out.

Quite simply he has to get this out of his game and drive with his legs as opposed to slinging.

[Big Al]

It was a worse looking tackle for sure. He slung him around his hip and all but pile drived into the ground.

Only difference, player wasn't injured...they definitely grade these tackles based mainly on injury outcomes. Which is wrong IMO. Intent should carry more wait.

If you assault someone or drink drive the penalty increases with the damage you do. Can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same here.

[Untamed Snark]

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/swans-may-contest-mumfords-suspension-20110620-1gbut.html

[SPC]

If you assault someone or drink drive the penalty increases with the damage you do. Can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same here.

I would have thought the opposite logic should apply? If you drink drive you dont get off just because you didnt kill someone - thats just a matter of blind luck - you get penalised for breaking the law in the first place. If the tackle is illegal & you want to stop it, then everyone who completes the tackle in the outlawed manner simply cops the penalty.

[giant]

Just saw this last night. Gee, there's not a lot to it - and basically he was 10 pts shy of getting four weeks! I'm not sure if I understand this ruling or this direction - seems to really penalise the strong boys.

[Chilcott]

Don't agree, but that's they way the game is these days and two weeks is reasonable, based on the @@@@e current rules.

Maybe he should stop tackling and introduce a sleeper hold or body drop into his repertoire.

[stellation]

If you assault someone or drink drive the penalty increases with the damage you do. Can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same here.

I agree if they judge it as "intentional", when it's judged as "negligent" I think it does need to be looked into a little more.