Abblet high contact again

[captain blood 17]

Your comebacks have the intellectual capacity of a gnat.

Classic Richmond, really.

Enjoy your day.

And he gets personal. Not surprising. It still hurts you. It’s ok. Here’s a cyber hug.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Says we have a chip on the shoulder thrn mashes the keyboard over our flag win from 2 years ago. It still hurts doesn’t it......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s the second incorrect take on something. Wanna try 3?

7-1 with maybe 1-2 hard games left this season. Life’s good atm.

 

[captain blood 17]

There’s the second incorrect take on something. Wanna try 3?

7-1 with maybe 1-2 hard games left this season. Life’s good atm.

Yep it should be. Point is with your clubs posters arrogance at this point in time, when it goes **** up at seasons end, no tears or disappearing please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Not exactly.

Ablett’s wasn’t high enough or had enough impact to actually get charged, Fyfe’s did.

I think both made enough impact to be classified as low. I don't think any "intentional" hit to the head or even body for that matter should be graded as "insufficient force". Just don't hit.

 

[Lex22]

I think both made enough impact to be classified as low. I don't think any "intentional" hit to the head or even body for that matter should be graded as "insufficient force". Just don't hit.

I agree entirely with you as in don’t hit at all but Gaz hasn’t hit anyone in the head, Fyfe did.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

and makes negligible contact.
Lucky boy that he didn’t but that’s how it happened.

If Dusty or Fyfe did this to Gaz, Cats fans would march on AFL House demanding justice.

And as I said, it was stated contact would be upgraded, upgraded, for intentional head high contact. As it was in the Dusty case, but not in the Gary case.

I. Just. Want. Consistency.

This. Was. Not. Consistent.

 

[yodellinhank]

At least Caleb Daniel will go in somewhat prepared. I think it would be gross negligence if more of the bulldogs don't follow suit, knowing what we do about Ablett.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

I agree entirely with you as in don’t hit at all but Gaz hasn’t hit anyone in the head, Fyfe did.

Hasn't hit anyone in the head? Seriously?

Watch the vision from the previous page, the twitter link. You clearly see the head jolt back from direct contact.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

If Dusty or Fyfe did this to Gaz, Cats fans would march on AFL House demanding justice.

And as I said, it was stated contact would be upgraded, upgraded, for intentional head high contact. As it was in the Dusty case, but not in the Gary case.

I. Just. Want. Consistency.

This. Was. Not. Consistent.

You’re comparing apples and oranges though.

One was an off the ball elbow/punch. The other an attempt to bump/shepherd gone wrong.

Who’s to say he gets cited last night and we don’t again win at the tribunal and get it downgraded to careless using the same arguments as last week?

Hardly comparable

 

[Lex22]

Hasn't hit anyone in the head? Seriously?

Watch the vision from the previous page, the twitter link. You clearly see the head jolt back from direct contact.

Watch it closely, he hasn’t hit him in the head and impact minimal.

At best the argument against Gaz is a freeze frame of his arm below Wright’s chin which like any slowmotion shots in these cases, put a bit of mayo on top of what actually happened.

 

[romeohwho]

Why aren’t you lads all so hopping mad about Fyfey?
Far more forceful than Ablett’s, if, as one assumes, you are all concerned about the impact. And he does have a bit of history with this sort of thing. Yet not even a thread from the outraged.
Ablett’s, not much force, both times.
Geelong obsessions or what.

 

[Whiskers]

Mate, have a spell yourself.

This quite clearly explains it with MOVING PICTURES!!



Not your fault Gaz is a protected species, but he is. Dusty would get two for this. As I said, Dusty needs to lose the tatts and find God and he'll be sweet.

Stop whinging about Dusty.
Dusty has already been protected after hitting a bloke in the head.
Do I think the force warranted a suspension? No! But the act was committed hey. He actually won a Brownlow being protected. You and Hawks fans are the last people who should complain as Brownlow’s were won as a result.
Than there’s Cotchin, could’ve been suspended for a GF. Much more significant protection.
Ablett gets to play juggernauts dogs and north in round 9 & 10. Whoopee freaking doo yayyyyyyy.
Dw He ain’t winning the Brownlow, that’s for Kelly

 

[fpm84]

And he gets personal. Not surprising. It still hurts you. It’s ok. Here’s a cyber hug.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s the thing. Most neutral supporters including me were happy to see your team win a flag because, let’s face it, who wouldn’t be happy for the league’s biggest laughingstock getting their s**t together for four weeks?

But clubs like mine, Hawthorn and West Coast strive for sustained excellence and multiple flags.

Your club had a chance to join that echelon of modern-day great clubs and you blew it in the most spectacular, embarrassing, hilarious fashion on prelim final night.

And your supporters have the gall arrogance/idiocy to assume we are all envious of your one recent flag?

Please. If by ‘it still hurts’ you mean my sides, from laughing, you are 100% spot on.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Stop whinging about Dusty.

Comprehension not your strong suit?

I used him as an example in asking for consistency.

MRO stated that acts graded intentional and to the head would have contact upgraded. This applied to Dusty case, yet mysteriously not Fyfe or Gaz.

If you want to wipe out head high elbow/forearm contact, do as you said you would MRO. Not find an outcome and then reverse apply criteria.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Ablett getting off was the right call.

Fyfe getting off wasn't.

The media agree, and most don't have agendas or personal grievances like those posting here. I know whose opinion I listen too.

 

[Coalface]

The problem is "insufficient force". It shouldn't be a factor. Either you've elbowed someone in the head or you haven't. The outcome of the action shouldn't matter in determining guilt - it should determine the penalty. And the minimum penalty should be a week.

And just for the record, yes Tom Mitchell should have got a week.

If it's going to be dependent on the impact to the player struck, we can expect soccer style histrionics to ramp up.

 

[sherb]

Any Geelong supporters think Ablett should have gone for this incident?

Nah, didn't think so.

Big Footy never changes.

 

[Whiskers]

Ablett getting off was the right call.

Fyfe getting off wasn't.

The media agree, and most don't have agendas or personal grievances like those posting here. I know whose opinion I listen too.

It’s really just the uneducated vs educated. Low class v high class.

High class - doesn’t warrant a suspension. They get it, they don’t carry on at the footy, get into fights and didn’t boo Goodes.

Lower class - suspend him. They are the confused ones. Makes them angry, bitter and jealous. The ones at the footy who get into fights and the same people who booed Goodes.

 

[shintemaster]

Personally I think the AFL is on shaky ground with allowing this kind of thing. I was never as worried as some appeared to be about the odd punch or elbow in the guts - with minimal impact - and didn't want to see players suspended for really minor issues. I don't think I feel quite the same way about head high actions that have no real football purpose and so much potential to go wrong. Ablett being let off due to the "impact" seems pretty generous to me given based on the footage it is Sam Wright ducking back at the last moment that is the only difference between low and potentially catastrophic impact. Just my 2c and Ablett is far from the first player to be involved in one of these - suspended or otherwise.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It’s really just the uneducated vs educated. Low class v high class.

High class - doesn’t warrant a suspension. They get it, they don’t carry on at the footy, get into fights and didn’t boo Goodes.

Lower class - suspend him. They are the confused ones. Makes them angry, bitter and jealous. The ones at the footy who get into fights and the same people who booed Goodes.

The thing is, the guidelines are there for everyone to read yet they still choose to ignore them. They are written there in black and white.

Durden was a suspension because he chose to bump and made head high contact that forced a player to miss the rest of the game with concussion ... he'll probably miss this week too. - suspension

Ablett got off because the force was neither low, medium or high impact. It was insufficient - no suspension.

Fyfe ran directly at Lynch with no other intention but to elbow him in the head. It was low impact - should have been a week.

Cousins didn't appeal - Hawthorn's own fault.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

If it's going to be dependent on the impact to the player struck, we can expect soccer style histrionics to ramp up.

There are medical reports to determine the impact. Leave it at that.

 

[FireKrakouer]

 

[lemon morang]

The thing is, the guidelines are there for everyone to read yet they still choose to ignore them. They are written there in black and white.

Durden was a suspension because he chose to bump and made head high contact that forced a player to miss the rest of the game with concussion ... he'll probably miss this week too. - suspension

Ablett got off because the force was neither low, medium or high impact. It was insufficient - no suspension.

Fyfe ran directly at Lynch with no other intention but to elbow him in the head. It was low impact - should have been a week.

Cousins didn't appeal - Hawthorn's own fault.

What frustrates me is that in effect we are saying that throwing elbows/forearms is OK but a fair shepherd is not ??.
I have been involved and followed footy for over 40 years and have never been as confused or disillusioned as I am today, I am confused by the umpiring interpretations , the MRP, the low scoring and just the look of this once great game .
My son, daughter and wife all feel the same, we all follow 3 different teams so can't blame it on our team going poorly.
Most of my friends feel the same and if something is not done soon they will have a huge drop off in people playing or attending.
Or maybe it just might be time for us to find a new sport to follow ???.

 

[CD Xbow]

Yeah coz pictures always speak for themselves.....
I can make the Cox incident or Mitchell’s incident or any incident look worse than what it is.
Goodness me have a spell.

Unfortunately the pictures tell the truth and it does't matter which way you want to spin it, the facts remain. Off the ball, deliberate, high contact, to the head with potential to cause terrible injury. Any other footballer would be getting a rest. The AFL is making a statement - we will protect Gary Ablett before other players heads. It total and utter hypocrisy, if you can't see that then you are blinded by your colours. Everyone knows Ablett gets a good run from the umps, now he's getting from the Match review.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

What frustrates me is that in effect we are saying that throwing elbows/forearms is OK but a fair shepherd is not ??.
I have been involved and followed footy for over 40 years and have never been as confused or disillusioned as I am today, I am confused by the umpiring interpretations , the MRP, the low scoring and just the look of this once great game .
My son, daughter and wife all feel the same, we all follow 3 different teams so can't blame it on our team going poorly.
Most of my friends feel the same and if something is not done soon they will have a huge drop off in people playing or attending.
Or maybe it just might be time for us to find a new sport to follow ???.

I'm not confused over the MRP because the guidelines are there. We can all see them and they are clear.

In regards to umpiring, it's not the umpires themselves that are at fault, it's the guys who are reactive and keep changing the interpretations confusing the umpires.

They should leave the game alone in that regard and make it easier to umpire. I do like the new interpretation of the push in the back law, and I like certain extents of the interpretations to holding the ball but the sliding rule is atrocious and based off one major injury to Rohan. That's the reactive part I'm referring to.

Leave the rules alone and let the umpires become accustomed to them and we'll see a better spectacle.

As for the shepherd, the rules are clear. If you choose to bump and take the player high you're in trouble. Rohan was concussed, Durdin was suspended. It's pretty clear-cut.