Tribunal = flip of a coin

[buddyhawks23]

Agree 100% with bateman's 3 weeks, out of form player running around for a cheap shot

But, how does Mcaffer not get 1 week !!! surely buddy's hit is a precedent.. looks very much the same, but buddy actually hit when the ball was still in a contest !

and Mumford on Ablett ?? .. is it a matter of hurt him and your out? what a load of s**t, sling tackle but mumford cant be expected to tell the ball spilled out

get it right !

 

[legend166]

Mumford decision is the worst I've ever seen at the tribunal.

I mean, obviously I'm biased in saying that, but still, atrocious decision. We better challenge.

 

[Astro_]

Mumford decision is the worst I've ever seen at the tribunal.

I mean, obviously I'm biased in saying that, but still, atrocious decision. We better challenge.

I agree, nothing in it. Looked like a legit tackle.

 

[Off The Couch]

That's what happens when you have biased commentary that carries on and on - Pickering and Russell were absolutely doing my head in listening to them yesterday and let me guess - Kelly had no case to answer

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Something about duty of care, heads hitting the ground. Was pretty much a suplex.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

That's what happens when you have biased commentary that carries on and on - Pickering and Russell were absolutely doing my head in listening to them yesterday and let me guess - Kelly had no case to answer

What did Kelly even do?

 

[HFF]

You're kidding, right?

Macaffer barely made contact. It was a tickler if anything.

 

[stellation]

Something about duty of care, heads hitting the ground. Was pretty much a suplex.

To be lazy and re-use my post on this from the MRP board...

To be lazy and re-use my post on this from RWO...

Go to http://www.afl.com.au/video/tabid/76/videotab/sydney-swans/default.aspx#VideoPlayerB
Round 7, Swans vs. Cats highlights go to 2:45 for the tackle on GAJ
Round 6, Swans vs. Lions highlights go to 2:50 for the tackle on ROK

It's one thing for the commentators to not get as excited when it happens if it doesn't appear to be as obvious, but to me it is a little puzzling that a rational panel sitting down and watching video multiple times thinks one week "no, nothing to answer- not even some carry over points" but the next week thinks "man, that's 2 weeks for that guy!" I have to say it's inconsistent to me.

Mumford is the biggest bloke involved in any of the incidents, certainly, but I don't think watching his tackle the intent is clearly to drive GAJ's head into the ground.

 

[WoGiTaLiA]

Wait... Mumford's suspension was for his legit tackle on Ablett? I assumed it must have been for something that was against the rules or something...

Kelly had absolutely no case, that was a very very soft 50 at worst. Shouldn't have been a report at all.

Doesn't change that the Mumford suspension is absolute rubbish.

Bateman's seems harsh to me, he got him high but contact surely had to be deemed low, was intentional though so I guess... still, for what he did a week was about all he should have gotten.

So over the tribunal in general, such a ridiculous way to try and change the game, basically implies that the rules in place don't work and that the umpires can't do the job and it punishes the fans far more than anyone else.

 

[legend166]

Something about duty of care, heads hitting the ground. Was pretty much a suplex.

You're kidding. At some point duty of care needs to go the hell away. It's a contact sport.

How they can classify it as head high contact is beyond me. At no stage did Mumford ever make contact with Ablett's head. If we're classifying head on turf as 'high contact', how can anyone ever bump again?You could give someone a perfectly legit bump, and oops, their head hits the ground and you're suspended for three weeks.

 

[goodie23]

I think of it as a dartboard or spinning wheel, have for years

 

[Inspector Malceski]

oh dear, you see O'keefe get the same thing happen to him against Brisbane yet one gets 0 weeks & Mummy get 3 weeks?

we need to appeal but we will probably lose

 

[buddyhawks23]

You're kidding, right?

Macaffer barely made contact. It was a tickler if anything.

barely made contact ? what is considered barely?

im recall, when buddy got suspended, it was preety much the precedent that any bump made, with contact to the head is a week in the 2's

 

[Pettas]

Mumford's one is the same as Milburn's from last year or the year before, shouldn't be anything but im not suprised

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Mumford is the biggest bloke involved in any of the incidents, certainly, but I don't think watching his tackle the intent is clearly to drive GAJ's head into the ground.

Did they rate it as intentional?

 

[Conan Troutman]

Mumford's one is the same as Milburn's from last year or the year before, shouldn't be anything but im not suprised

Yeah Milburn got 4 weeks, reduced to 2 IIRC

[YOUTUBE]wasFeA69V78[/YOUTUBE]

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

If it was the one I'm thinking of - solid, hard tackle

Ablett seemed rattled but got up like he always did - no different to the ones Crowley was laying on Ablett at Subi

He drove in to the ground a bit - slap on the wrist at most

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Wait... Mumford's suspension was for his legit tackle on Ablett? I assumed it must have been for something that was against the rules or something...

Yeah, Milburn got done for a perfect tackle against a little Tiger midget a couple of years back. If you tackle someone and their head smashes into the ground, you're gonna get done.

You're kidding. At some point duty of care needs to go the hell away. It's a contact sport.

How they can classify it as head high contact is beyond me. At no stage did Mumford ever make contact with Ablett's head. If we're classifying head on turf as 'high contact', how can anyone ever bump again?You could give someone a perfectly legit bump, and oops, their head hits the ground and you're suspended for three weeks.

Hey, not saying I agree with it at all.

 

[LordJimmy]

Tribunal has always been a joke, but the question remains, why hasn't it been revamped and given attention as a serious problem? It has a completely different effect on the game than intended, one that is often drastic and unfair.

I'll always view Baker's 7 weeks for something no one saw and was described as a fair bump on someone who ran into him as the worst call in the tribunal's history. Hall nearly kills someone and gets the same penalty. Consistency my ass.

 

[winty]

You're kidding. At some point duty of care needs to go the hell away. It's a contact sport.

How they can classify it as head high contact is beyond me. At no stage did Mumford ever make contact with Ablett's head. If we're classifying head on turf as 'high contact', how can anyone ever bump again?You could give someone a perfectly legit bump, and oops, their head hits the ground and you're suspended for three weeks.

Milburn got suspended for exactly the same thing two years ago, before the league even started cracking down on it.

 

[Off The Couch]

What did Kelly even do?

The same as mumford

 

[buddyhawks23]

Yeah Milburn got 4 weeks, reduced to 2 IIRC

[YOUTUBE]wasFeA69V78[/YOUTUBE]

look at the difference ! ... look how early the ball spilt out before he hit the ground. and you can see milburn is aware the ball is out

 

[HFF]

barely made contact ? what is considered barely?

im recall, when buddy got suspended, it was preety much the precedent that any bump made, with contact to the head is a week in the 2's

Take it up on the Josh Kennedy board if you want to compare it to an actual hit.

As I said, Macaffer's wasn't even a hit. It was even softer than being tickled by a feather.

 

[buddyhawks23]

Take it up on the Josh Kennedy board if you want to compare it to an actual hit.

As I said, Macaffer's wasn't even a hit. It was even softer than being tickled by a feather.

arf go for collingwood, must play stupid

 

[TheGoatBaron]

How did Dean Polo get 1 week for his whack to the stomach on the Crows player? If Barry Hall did it, it would have been worth at least 6 weeks. The MRP truely is inconsistent.