Ablett a protected species

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kreme Pie

Team Captain
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Posts
359
Likes
586
AFL Club
Collingwood
#52
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.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Posts
214
Likes
439
AFL Club
Collingwood
#54
Yeah Rhys did cos it was a square up for a previous one
No....as GAJ’s legal team would have said, "Banksy was just trying to brush past him and he tried to ease him out of his space with his forearm but Rhys Jones leaned forward at the last minute and a glancing blow occurred. It was insufficient force for serious injury and his removal from the ground was purely precautionary"
 

3rdMan

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Posts
324
Likes
335
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
#55
Not sure if it's meant as a joke, but any chance we could get the thread title changed? We've had an Ablett in the league almost forever now, reckon we could spell it correctly.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
38,288
Likes
15,851
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
#57
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.
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?
 

dmoore30

All Australian
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Posts
607
Likes
821
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
#58
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?
This new PC era has the AFL in no mans land when it comes to sanctions now. Absolute joke.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
38,288
Likes
15,851
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
#59
I agree.
There are so many minefields of inconsistency open to "interpretation" by the already "confused as hell" umpiring fraternity.
The newest being the "holding your ground" BS.
In my lifetime I think I have seen over a dozen (most totally failed and many idiotic) different rule variations on hands in the back.
 

jonbe54

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Posts
14,504
Likes
8,884
Location
Rural paradise
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #60
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

35Daicos

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Posts
6,264
Likes
7,196
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood (VFL), Man Utd.
#62
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?
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).
 

Shpeshal Ed

I see you on televishaaaaan!
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Posts
23,514
Likes
20,891
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Man. U, Chicago Bulls, Ολυμπιακός
#67
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.
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?
 

jonbe54

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Posts
14,504
Likes
8,884
Location
Rural paradise
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #68
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.

1. the ball is not in dispute
2. he runs directly at the opposition player
3. he clearly jumps to get high enough to swing that elbow
4. clearly NO INTENTION to contest the ball

The fact he is still running around is a clear indictment on the AFL at large.

After the first incident most would have settled down, but he clearly replicated it as exactly as he could. The mindset behind that is bloody arrogant.

Damage in these incidents is only incidental - the first was a clear intention to strike the opposition player in the head with no interest in the ball.
The second incident is a F$CK you to the AFL and all who dared speak against him.

I've always considered him a damn fine player - but this has turned me against him as a person - his old man was bad enough and it seems that the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.
 

Kreme Pie

Team Captain
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Posts
359
Likes
586
AFL Club
Collingwood
#69
I am utterly blown away by the fact that Ablett got off all charges 2 weeks in a row for those deliberate, wreckless and errant forearm/elbows to someone’s head, after the ball.
Meanwhile his old teammate Travis Varcoe sits in the stands this week for essentially bending over to contest a loose ball.

Unf***ingbelievable.
 

PieNSauce

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
8,245
Likes
5,313
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
are jealous!
#70
I'm of the opinion that giving impact the level of importance that they do is a mistake that will one day come back to bite the AFL big time. I recognise that it's not always possible to judge intent unless you're a great mind reader but to me intent has to be king in these matters. The MRP/tribunal system performs the function of protecting the well-being of players and the integrity of the game in general or at least that was once its role. The intent is to remove unsafe and unsavoury acts from the game by providing a significant disincentive. If so much hinges on the outcome of an action then actions which are potentially unsafe can go unpunished and by extension, they are not actively discouraged until someone actually gets hurt and possibly badly. Personally, I'd like to see them significantly reduce the level of importance of the outcome and therefore place a far greater emphasis on intent regardless of the fact that it will be difficult to get every case right. Go back and revisit the role of the system and it's clear that it's not currently doing a particularly great job of performing that function. The simple action now would be to outlaw the bumper bar specifically before someone gets a broken jaw or neck.
 

jackcass

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Posts
16,600
Likes
14,122
Location
Bendigo
AFL Club
Collingwood
#71
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.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
11,656
Likes
15,239
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
#72
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.
Yep. I think it's those complaining about these incidents who are making it all about the player and not the incident, whereas the MRP did the right thing and made it all about the incidents.
 

jonbe54

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Posts
14,504
Likes
8,884
Location
Rural paradise
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #73
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.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
38,288
Likes
15,851
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
#74
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.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
11,656
Likes
15,239
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
#75
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.
Agree on the rules front in general, but not on the player protection front regarding suspensions. And if we go back to 2002 tribunal and suspension, it was much more of a guess on what the verdict and suspension length was back then compared to what it is now.
 
Top Bottom