Abblet high contact again

lemon morang

Rookie
May 30, 2017
42
36
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I agree Cockarfitt and am not umire bashing but rather trying to make it easier to umpire/understand and explain so everyone knows the rules....these are the rules that are making the game harder to umpire and should be made clearer:
The protected area rule should be the first to go, 9 out of 10 times has no effect on the play and it could be paid 100 times a game ??.
With the holding the ball rule I would take the prior opportunity out, so if you can't dispose of the ball by either hand or foot it's holding the ball. It rewards the tackler is easier to umpire and keeps the game moving.
Remove below the knees rule, it's totally against what we were taught as kids to do get in first to the ball....teach them to keep their feet.
The deliberate out of bounds rule also remove, the interpretations change from week to week and it infuriates spectators. Possibly change to last player to touch the ball a free goes to the opposition ??, keeps the ball in play and everyone knows who's kick it is.
These are a few of the top of my head, sorry for the rant !!.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Whiskers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2006
5,632
4,057
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
There was another incident where Ablett hits a north player’s back out of frustration as the north player was bending down.
It was highlighted during the game when they were going to show the forearm.
The hit didn’t bother the north player as the hit was quite meek.
Is this also a suspension based on ‘action’ It would be a shocker if it were.
I wonder if anyone remembers it?
 

marcus1232

Team Captain
Apr 19, 2009
591
617
knoxfield
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think its more the whole situation is a farce.
The AFL needs to suspend on the action first and foremost.
Last week i was ok with him getting off because it seemed out of character and a little clumsy
This week they needed to say enough's a enough have a one week break

As much as that one annoys me, the Nat Fyfe one was 10 x worse
 

Doashuey

Club Legend
Sep 13, 2017
1,443
2,813
AFL Club
West Coast
I
Remove below the knees rule, it's totally against what we were taught as kids to do get in first to the ball....teach them to keep their feet.
This is counter-intuitive. The below the knees rule rewards the guys keeping their feet- you cant give away a penalty if you keep your feet. Removing it will reward guys diving on the ball against a guy keeping his feet.
There have been some shocking interpretations over the time, mostly when a guy is already on the ground and essentially stationary, the ball spills out and he lunges for it as another guy comes in over top. IMO this should never be a free.
However the more I see of it, the more I think it should be retained to reward the guys keeping their feet to contest a ground ball rather than those diving in and cause potential leg injuries. Get the silly ones out of it like described above and I think its not a bad rule.
 

Whiskers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2006
5,632
4,057
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I think its more the whole situation is a farce.
The AFL needs to suspend on the action first and foremost.
Last week i was ok with him getting off because it seemed out of character and a little clumsy
This week they needed to say enough's a enough have a one week break

As much as that one annoys me, the Nat Fyfe one was 10 x worse
It’s the same action and you want a different outcome.
That’s not how the system works.
You can’t be ok with it one week and not the next Robbo.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ghost of Punt Road

Club Legend
Aug 11, 2004
1,348
346
Under the Punt Rd Stand
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Martin, mild contact, off the ball, high contact, no injury. 2 weeks. (down to 1 on appeal, but this question is about how it is graded to begin with).


Fyfe wasn't even looking at the ball, jumped and hit someone in the head.
Abblett hit 2 people in the head.

Now I don't mind which team you play for. My question is about what criteria they are using.

Martin was off the ball. Fyfe was with the ball near, but was not going for the ball.

Is the criteria how far away the ball is? Surely it is about hitting someone in the head?
Neither target suffered damage. Both were equally shaken for the same amount of time.

One incident is two weeks, one is not even a fine.

One was given additional penalty for "Potential to cause damage".

So, I think we agree that there is potential to cause damage when you jump and put an elbow into someone,s head. So the increase in penalty from zero...can't still be zero.
 

B4Bear

Premiership Player
Jul 6, 2011
4,947
7,722
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
By peanut brains maybe....

Will Chris Judd be remembered for the chicken wing and nothing else? Will Luke Hodge be remembered for shoving a player into the goal post? Is Gary Ablett Snr only remembered for decking Gary Lyon? Of course not
Damn straight about Judd.

Not only was he a thug, he was a coward too.

Chicken Wing Tackle
Eye Gouge
Pressure Points
Pav's nose

All done on either helpless or unsuspecting opponents. Those of us who saw it remember what really happened and what an absolute turd he was. Being good at football does not automatically make you a good person; no matter how much the media and club might like to tell you otherwise.
 

smasha

Premium Platinum
Sep 7, 2003
37,608
32,436
Richmond Paddock
AFL Club
Richmond
Martin, mild contact, off the ball, high contact, no injury. 2 weeks. (down to 1 on appeal, but this question is about how it is graded to begin with).


Fyfe wasn't even looking at the ball, jumped and hit someone in the head.
Abblett hit 2 people in the head.

Now I don't mind which team you play for. My question is about what criteria they are using.

Martin was off the ball. Fyfe was with the ball near, but was not going for the ball.

Is the criteria how far away the ball is? Surely it is about hitting someone in the head?
Neither target suffered damage. Both were equally shaken for the same amount of time.

One incident is two weeks, one is not even a fine.

One was given additional penalty for "Potential to cause damage".

So, I think we agree that there is potential to cause damage when you jump and put an elbow into someone,s head. So the increase in penalty from zero...can't still be zero.
Whateley is a disgrace the way he throws Dusty into a bus when you look at the footage,he hardly hit the other player,the same force as Abletts two hits,he plays the violin for lil Gaz yet makes out Dusty to be a mass murderer,he is a hypocrite.

“potential to cause serious injury” Whateley should take up politics.

“state of the game” also,just lol.

Protects his Cats to the hilt.

How’s Fox with the dramatic music like he murdered someone, playing their grand final.

#weareeveryonesgrandfinal
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
18,446
15,048
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Damn straight about Judd.

Not only was he a thug, he was a coward too.

Chicken Wing Tackle
Eye Gouge
Pressure Points
Pav's nose

All done on either helpless or unsuspecting opponents. Those of us who saw it remember what really happened and what an absolute turd he was. Being good at football does not automatically make you a good person; no matter how much the media and club might like to tell you otherwise.
Let me put it another way:

Andrew Gaff will be remembered for breaking Brayshaw's jaw
Dean Solomon will be remembered for breaking Cameron Ling's jaw

You expect us to believe Gary Ablett Junior will be remembered for making innocuous contact with an opposition player's head that did absolutely no damage?
 

B4Bear

Premiership Player
Jul 6, 2011
4,947
7,722
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Let me put it another way:

Andrew Gaff will be remembered for breaking Brayshaw's jaw
Dean Solomon will be remembered for breaking Cameron Ling's jaw

You expect us to believe Gary Ablett Junior will be remembered for making innocuous contact with an opposition player's head that did absolutely no damage?
Different argument there old son. People will remember, but it will not define him like Judd.
 

hawkman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
17,145
19,130
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
Whateley is a disgrace the way he throws Dusty into a bus when you look at the footage,he hardly hit the other player,the same force as Abletts two hits,he plays the violin for lil Gaz yet makes out Dusty to be a mass murderer,he is a hypocrite.

“potential to cause serious injury” Whateley should take up politics.

“state of the game” also,just lol.

Protects his Cats to the hilt.

How’s Fox with the dramatic music like he murdered someone, playing their grand final.

#weareeveryonesgrandfinal
At least Robbo is generally consistent with his outrage. They were both constantly last year complaining about Mitchell's soft forearm into Goldstein. Now when Ablett is up, Whateley now says there needs to be some force behind it which is the opposite to what he was saying last year
 

stax on the mull

Club Legend
Dec 26, 2010
2,222
2,913
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Matildas
Don't think there's any intent to cause injury in Ablett's jump at the player. Even though what he does looks like a silly show of bravado he was coming in from the side and his leading arm is across his body, not coming through with momentum and its his wrists that make the initial contact to the shoulder chest area. Pay a free kick downfield and 50m (if that behind the play rule is still in effect).

Fyfe's looks a little more dangerous, but the contact starts with the forearm on the Lynch's shoulder, slides up and contacts Lynch's head (looks more like neck) as Lynch is turning it away. He's about to go in for the ball, reaching to tap it forward with his left hand and then puts that same arm up to protect himself from the kind of head on head contact he had 5 weeks earlier.

You can freeze frame both incidents and show at a particular point that the forearm is in contact with the head, but in both examples that point of contact is during the untangling motion when the players are separating.

There's always a potential of more serious injury because the elbow is part of the arm, and when the arm is raised the elbow is raised, but people saying elbow to the head are way off the mark, and the fact that both opponents got up straight away and unscathed is evidence of that.

The MRO officer has correctly judged them both as being insufficient force.
 
Top Bottom