Everyone in the ground, (even Rhys) knew it was coming...
Yeah Rhys did cos it was a square up for a previous one
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Everyone in the ground, (even Rhys) knew it was coming...
Only a complete moron would boo him.Perhaps he might get booed even more now. I know the incidents look worse when they’re shown in slow-mo, but geez I’m surprised he got off twice in a row.
Yeah Rhys did cos it was a square up for a previous one
If anyone thinks Ablett deserves a suspension is soft as butter but are also the same ones complaining that the games gone soft and complain about umpires.
Nothing in it, north player got straight back up and didn't react, clearly nothing in it.
This new PC era has the AFL in no mans land when it comes to sanctions now. Absolute joke.The problem is the inconsistency.
If either of Abblett's incidents were a Collingwood player you get weeks.
No way Cox would have gotten off the first one Abblet did.
The second time after being found guilty, he would have got 4 weeks, to set an example.
The Rampe debacle is proof positive the AFL have no clue on these issues.
From not even a free, to an $11,000 fine?
Would the Ablett incident have been looked at in the 70s, 80s or 90s?Aussie rules is a joke in terms of rule making - the AFL couldn't frame a rule to save it's life.
It's all too interpretive and far too many grey areas.
Rampe was fined $10,000 for insulting an umpire (half of that was suspended), while the fine for the goalpost incident was $1,000 (which was fully suspended).The problem is the inconsistency.
If either of Abblett's incidents were a Collingwood player you get weeks.
No way Cox would have gotten off the first one Abblet did.
The second time after being found guilty, he would have got 4 weeks, to set an example.
The Rampe debacle is proof positive the AFL have no clue on these issues.
From not even a free, to an $11,000 fine?
Would the Ablett incident have been looked at in the 70s, 80s or 90s?
Exactly.Play on
That's even worse.Rampe was fined $10,000 for insulting an umpire (half of that was suspended), while the fine for the goalpost incident was $1,000 (which was fully suspended).
But it's not the 70s,80s,or 90s what's your pointWould the Ablett incident have been looked at in the 70s, 80s or 90s?
If anyone thinks Ablett deserves a suspension is soft as butter but are also the same ones complaining that the games gone soft and complain about umpires.
Nothing in it, north player got straight back up and didn't react, clearly nothing in it.
It's not so much the incidents but the displayed arrogance - the - "I AM ABLETT AND YOU CAN ALL GET F$CKED" attitude.I'd argue both of Ablett's were soft if we're being honest.
My thing is, the second one should have received a punishment because it's clearly becoming a pattern of behaviour which needs to be nipped in the bud. Look at how much worse Judd got with each incident he got off with.
Eye gouging, chicken winging etc. Ablett starts with elbows to the head, what's next though?
It's not so much the incidents but the displayed arrogance - the - "I AM ABLETT AND YOU CAN ALL GET F$CKED" attitude.
I think that is why so many think the GAJ decisions are wrong and are banging on about this "protected species" crap rather than assessing them on their merits. Nothing in either incident and correct outcomes achieved via MRP and tribunal. We'd be horrified if a Collingwood player was treated any different.
Watch a match from 2002 and you would think it was a different sport.For me the incidents are merely the sideshow attraction - accountability, predictability and consistency are what it's all about - NONE of which the MRP are displaying.
Watch a match from 2002 and you would think it was a different sport.
The pointless, "tweaking" which has taken place over the last decade and half is just pure stupidity.