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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ernie koala
    Senior Player
    • May 2007
    • 3251

    #16
    Originally posted by bennyfabulous
    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.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

    Comment

    • Captain
      Captain of the Side
      • Feb 2004
      • 3602

      #17
      Pathetic. Massive worry for the game.

      Becomming way too soft.

      Comment

      • bennyfabulous
        Warming the Bench
        • Apr 2009
        • 351

        #18
        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.

        Comment

        • DST
          The voice of reason!
          • Jan 2003
          • 2705

          #19
          Originally posted by 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.
          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
          "Looking forward to a rebuilt, new, fast and exciting Swans model in 2010"

          Comment

          • DST
            The voice of reason!
            • Jan 2003
            • 2705

            #20
            Originally posted by bennyfabulous
            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
            "Looking forward to a rebuilt, new, fast and exciting Swans model in 2010"

            Comment

            • Steve
              Regular in the Side
              • Jan 2003
              • 676

              #21
              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.

              Comment

              • johnno
                On the Rookie List
                • Apr 2008
                • 1102

                #22
                Mumford has been suspended for basically being too strong.

                Comment

                • Cpt. Kirk
                  Warming the Bench
                  • Feb 2011
                  • 351

                  #23
                  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.

                  Comment

                  • Bloody Hell
                    Senior Player
                    • Oct 2006
                    • 3085

                    #24
                    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.
                    The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.

                    Comment

                    • Big Al
                      Veterans List
                      • Feb 2005
                      • 7007

                      #25
                      Originally posted by ernie koala
                      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.
                      ..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 SEN

                      Comment

                      • Untamed Snark
                        Senior Player
                        • Feb 2011
                        • 1375

                        #26
                        Chillin' with the strange Quarks

                        Comment

                        • SPC
                          Pushing for Selection
                          • Jan 2011
                          • 95

                          #27
                          Originally posted by Big Al
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • giant
                            Veterans List
                            • Mar 2005
                            • 4731

                            #28
                            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.

                            Comment

                            • Chilcott
                              Regular in the Side
                              • Jan 2008
                              • 595

                              #29
                              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.

                              Comment

                              • stellation
                                scott names the planets
                                • Sep 2003
                                • 9720

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Big Al
                                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.
                                I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
                                We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

                                Comment

                                Working...