MRP

[stevoswan]

A fair few fines handed out.

Come finals, they should reduce the number of fines and convert them to suspensions as a deterrent to stupid infield actions (I'm looking squarely at the Hawks & GWS!)

Someone suggested, I think on ABC's Offsiders, that they should double the suspension penalties for offences, for all finals and not just the GF. I think this is a sensible approach. Stevie J would now be out of the GF right now, OR, he may not have assaulted JK in the first place, with this threat hanging over him. Mummy the same, although I actually doubt it with Mumford. They also added that it might be good if the umpires treated finals like normal games, instead of seemingly allowing thuggery, just "because it's finals footy". I agree on both counts.

[Go Swannies]

Must be a different Shane Mumford:

JULY 07, 201112:06PM
SYDNEY ruckman Shane Mumford is raring to go after serving his second suspension in as many years for controversial sling tackles.

Mumford received the latest two-match ban for a heavy tackle that concussed Carlton midfielder David Ellard.
It was similar to the tackle on then-Geelong midfielder Gary Ablett last year that also saw the big Swan sidelined for two weeks.
"If you take someone to ground in a tackle you are risking suspension, the best idea is to try and hold them up and not take that risk," Mumford said on today.
"I've been working on it for the past couple of weeks now, to basically try to pin blokes' arms so they can't get rid of the ball while still standing up."
Mumford cops two-match ban

Updated 11 May 2010, 8:55pm

Sydney's senior ruck stocks rest with Canadian import Mike Pyke after Shane Mumford on Tuesday night became the first AFL player suspended for making a dangerous tackle.
Mumford was suspended by the AFL tribunal for two matches after being found guilty of engaging in rough conduct for slinging Geelong star Gary Ablett across his own body in the Cats' 67-point victory over the Swans at Kardinia Park last Sunday.
Mumford's pain was eased because his sanction was downgraded from a three-match suspension to two after the jury ruled his conduct was negligent instead of reckless.
"That's not the result that I was looking for but I've just got to take it on the chin," said Mumford, who became the first player outed under the AFL rule introduced at the start of the year prohibiting dangerous tackles.
The Swans are yet to announce whether they will appeal against the verdict.
Mumford's loss is a major blow for the Swans, who are now desperately short of seasoned ruckmen, as number one choice Mark Seaby is sidelined by an ankle injury.
Mumford claimed he rolled his former team-mate across his body to prevent Ablett breaking the tackle with his trademark strength.
The Swans stressed although Ablett's head made contact with the turf, Mumford's tackle did not constitute a spear tackle, and that Ablett's legs left the ground after they came into contact with Mumford's.
But AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson SC said the tackle began as a "perfect" one because Mumford pinned one of Ablett's arms, but the second action in rolling him to the left was "unnecessary in the circumstances".
Gleeson said Mumford's action was "inherently dangerous", and the Cats' medical report stated Ablett suffered a mild headache after landing and experienced "mild visual disturbance".
Mumford will also miss the round nine match against Fremantle.

[Go Swannies]

I wonder what it looks like when your head hits the ground?

Kurt Tippett left hurting after Mumford tackle - YouTube[/VIDEO]

[stevoswan]

Am I imagining Tippett's head hitting the ground when I watch the video??

You are certainly not imagining it, Meg. It's as if the MRP are looking at it through blue, orange and white filtered glasses. It's different to what everyone else is seeing, that's for sure. Truly mystifying, but somehow not surprising. This league is becoming hard to enjoy again.....

[goswannies]

I am not usually a critic of the MRP - but their rationale for no action on the Mumford tackle on Tippett has me baffled. I've extracted some of it below.

A key point according to the MRP is that Tippett's head made no contact with the ground during the tackle. I can see Tippett's head bouncing off the ground in the video (makes me wince every time I look at it). Are they saying this happened after the tackle was completed so doesn't count?

His head only hit the ground because of the tackle - he was banged into the ground so hard that, without any opportunity to protect himself (because Mumford had his arm pinned) the momentum then caused his head to bounce off the ground.

Am I imagining Tippett's head hitting the ground when I watch the video??

"Mumford has hold of Tippett's right arm while Whitfield's tackle falls to the thing/knee area, off-balancing the Sydney player. Tippett's right shoulder and right side of his body make contact with the turf, while his head does not hit the ground at any stage during the tackle. Tippett remains on the ground after the play is completed. After discussion with the club and the receipt of a medical report, the MRP was able to determine that player Tippett had been injured in an earlier ruck contest but sustained no injury specific to this tackle. It was the view of the panel that the absence of any head contact to the ground and insufficient forceful body contact meant that no charge would be laid. No further action was taken."

Even without contact with the ground, there can still be trauma to the brain.

Picture a water filled glove (the brain) inside a clear plastic box (the skull). Rapidly lower the box toward the ground without actually hitting the ground. The momentum of the plastic box stopping will still cause the water filled glove to squish down against the plastic box (potential brain tissue trauma).
Moreover, the neck can be subject to whiplash-like injury as it laterally flexes to the side to its end of physiological range as the heavy head descends (the head hitting the ground stops that, but concusses the player) and as the neck whips/bounces back up after momentum is arrested, further potential neck injury as the reverse momentum of the head bounces it back up (amplified by the high velocity of the sling tackle). The elastic tissue of the ligaments, muscles and tendons of the neck produce this elastic recoil. In Tippett's case it didn't bounce back up, however.

I'd love to be a sports lawyer (like or former very own Adrian Battiston) as I think one day there is a possibility for a class action when incidents like Mummy's result in long standing deleterious concussion & whiplash consequences, with the AFL being held accountable through a duty of care for its employees.

[Meg]

Even without contact with the ground, there can still be trauma to the brain.

I'd love to be a sports lawyer (like or former very own Adrian Battiston) as I think one day there is a possibility for a class action when incidents like Mummy's result in long standing deleterious concussion & whiplash consequences, with the AFL being held accountable through a duty of care for its employees.

Spot on. Mumford had every opportunity to wrap Tippett up in a perfect tackle with his arms pinned while Tippett was still on his feet. Instead Mumford chose to sling him to the ground. That is so dangerous - which MRP decisions such as today's and the umpires' failure to penalise with a free kick do nothing to discourage.

[Danzar]

Bam. Not only head hitting the ground, his jaw at that.Mumford.jpg

[goswannies]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1624[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1625[/ATTACH]

Tippett's hair is quite flat in the second image - either the head hit the ground or the hair cushioned the impact

[Go Swannies]

Screen Shot 2016-09-12 at 5.26.02 PM.jpgScreen Shot 2016-09-12 at 5.25.12 PM.jpg

[Meg]

Clubs can appeal MRP penalties at the Tribunal. Can they appeal failure to apply a penalty?

Not that the Swans would do so. But this decision on the Mumford tackle makes a mockery of the AFL saying at the beginning of this season that they would crack down on sling tackles this year.

[kilroyII]

I am not usually a critic of the MRP - but their rationale for no action on the Mumford tackle on Tippett has me baffled. I've extracted some of it below.

A key point according to the MRP is that Tippett's head made no contact with the ground during the tackle. I can see Tippett's head bouncing off the ground in the video (makes me wince every time I look at it). Are they saying this happened after the tackle was completed so doesn't count?

His head only hit the ground because of the tackle - he was banged into the ground so hard that, without any opportunity to protect himself (because Mumford had his arm pinned) the momentum then caused his head to bounce off the ground.

Am I imagining Tippett's head hitting the ground when I watch the video??

"Mumford has hold of Tippett's right arm while Whitfield's tackle falls to the thing/knee area, off-balancing the Sydney player. Tippett's right shoulder and right side of his body make contact with the turf, while his head does not hit the ground at any stage during the tackle. Tippett remains on the ground after the play is completed. After discussion with the club and the receipt of a medical report, the MRP was able to determine that player Tippett had been injured in an earlier ruck contest but sustained no injury specific to this tackle. It was the view of the panel that the absence of any head contact to the ground and insufficient forceful body contact meant that no charge would be laid. No further action was taken."

Without mummy GWS are average TBH and GWS wont make it to the dance, much to the disgrace of a certain stakeholder who happens to be El Patron.

Hope that clears why mummy hasnt been suspended even though Tippett damaged his jaw and will miss out on a final from an illegal tackle.

I swear i want to drive down to docklands tonight and in massive fluro industrial spray paint (takes a long time to remove) cross out the AFL and paint FIFA next to it and then write Mike "Sepp Blatter" Fitzpatrick all over AFL HQs.

[kilroyII]

Bam. Not only head hitting the ground, his jaw at that.[ATTACH=CONFIG]1627[/ATTACH]

Are there any grounds for Tippett to take Dumbford and the AFL to court for damages? Or the club to appeal mummies decision? Something got be done, because this is like cops getting off a charge of assault even with sufficient video evidence.

And Dumbford made a bold claim that he will got out an injure a few swans last week and he ended up doing just that.

And IMHO Dumbford holds a lot of resentment towards Tippett and Buddy. There was a ball up in the first few minutes of the game where the big moron said a few choice words to Tippett which caught buddies attention to which both reacted.

I know I am being all hyperbolic, but enough is enough.

[stevoswan]

Without mummy GWS are average TBH and GWS wont make it to the dance, much to the disgrace of a certain stakeholder who happens to be El Patron.

Hope that clears why mummy hasnt been suspended even though Tippett damaged his jaw and will miss out on a final from an illegal tackle.

I swear i want to drive down to docklands tonight and in massive fluro industrial spray paint (takes a long time to remove) cross out the AFL and paint FIFA next to it and then write Mike "Sepp Blatter" Fitzpatrick all over AFL HQs.

DO IT!!!!!

[kilroyII]

Also remember Tippetts condition at the crows when there was talk of one more concussion could end his career? What if Dumbford has caused some brain trauma that will be later dedicated?

I really hate Shane Dumbford, to the point i am ready to photoshop him from 2012 pic..might as well as he was next to useless that day.

[stevoswan]

* Todays Quiz* ...In the following photo, identify 1: a thug, 2: a possible drug cheat, and 3: a decent human being.........JK swan-gwsportrait.jpg