Ablett a protected species

[jonbe54]

Sr you can't have one player deliberately lining up an opposition player, jumping off the ground and deliberately swinging an elbow to the face and making contact with no penalty whatsoever.

That makes the game a laughing stock - I quite liked the way gazza has played over the journey but NOT this latest development - it's a terrible look for parents who have children with league aspirations.

It's also NOT the type of look that corporates are looking for when the time comes for sponsorship dollars to be allocated.

EVERY player needs to be judged by the same standards.

This is CLEARLY not the case - as I said before

ACCOUNTABILITY

PREDICTABILITY

CONSISTENCY.

 

[surfer1]

Yes as is Joel Selwood

 

[jackcass]

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.

I disagree and think in fact that it's punter assessment and expectations that are the major variables.

 

[jackcass]

Sr you can't have one player deliberately lining up an opposition player, jumping off the ground and deliberately swinging an elbow to the face and making contact with no penalty whatsoever.

That makes the game a laughing stock - I quite liked the way gazza has played over the journey but NOT this latest development - it's a terrible look for parents who have children with league aspirations.

It's also NOT the type of look that corporates are looking for when the time comes for sponsorship dollars to be allocated.

EVERY player needs to be judged by the same standards.

This is CLEARLY not the case - as I said before

ACCOUNTABILITY

PREDICTABILITY

CONSISTENCY.

I assume you are referring to the 2nd GAJ incident and:

1. there'd be a 1000 instances a game where a player looks to block an opponent's run on to the next contest.
2. the initial contact was to the shoulder and sliped high.
3. contact was incidental and there wasn't enough force in it to merit anything other than a free kick.

GAJ isn't what I'd consider a brave player so he was likely more scared for himself in the bump which is why he jumped and braced. If it had been Keiran Strachan or Tobe Watson or Jake Aarts instead of GAJ there'd be none of this discussion. The only error in any of it (other than GAJ's technique) was the lack of a 50m penalty.

Maybe it's you applying the disparate standards.

 

[joff]

Great to see Ablett has stopped with the elbows to the head but not sure about the latest technique of punching straight to the head

 

[barrackers]

The push connects, the first swing misses, the second swing doesn't. The GC player may have accentuated the force, however there's potential for injury, so it should be intentional, high contact, low impact = 1 week

 

[jonbe54]

The push connects, the first swing misses, the second swing doesn't. The GC player may have accentuated the force, however there's potential for injury, so it should be intentional, high contact, low impact = 1 week

This is another demonstration of my concern with Ablett - it's happened 3 weeks in a row. Any opponent is clearly in the firing line and because the AFL refuse to chastise him he knows he can do anything he likes.

 

[The Plowking]

This is another demonstration of my concern with Ablett - it's happened 3 weeks in a row. Any opponent is clearly in the firing line and because the AFL refuse to chastise him he knows he can do anything he likes.

Nothing in it except a great big dive

 

[jonbe54]

Nothing in it except a great big dive

YOU'RE point of view and you are welcome to it.

His arrogance now knows no bounds and it's propped up by an adoring AFL.

Hopefully someone isn't seriously injured by his hubris and other's willingness to allow him free reign because of his talent.

 

[GreekLunatic]

3 strikes and he might be out

 

[Apex36]

Nothing in it except a great big dive

He went down because he was pushed by another player not because of Abletts hit. Wouldn’t call it a dive. I’m with barrackers on this one. There’s no possible way for him to have this graded as unintentional, he took 2 swings after all. I think he might be in a bit of trouble this time. There’s only so many times the MRO can cover for you until the outcry becomes too loud.

 

[OniAu]

Anyone saying there is nothing in it is a big a head case as Gary.

If Coxy did any of the acts the little master has in the past three weeks , he would be gone every time. Not even just 1 week


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[foreigner]

3 strikes and he might be out

I doubt it

 

[barrackers]

He went down because he was pushed by another player not because of Abletts hit. Wouldn’t call it a dive. I’m with barrackers on this one. There’s no possible way for him to have this graded as unintentional, he took 2 swings after all. I think he might be in a bit of trouble this time. There’s only so many times the MRO can cover for you until the outcry becomes too loud.

The GC player threw the head back a little, but yep the other Geelong player then shoved him to the ground. The round arm that missed removes any confusion as to whether the third action was an ill attempted push or a punch. Ablett was extremely lucky to get off the two elbows and this punch is worse. It's fortunate that the GC player wasn't coming forward as the punch was delivered otherwise the force would have been higher - hence the potential for injury.

Here's the relevant sections of the tribunal guidelines

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

CONDUCT
Intentional conduct
A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the Player engaged in the conduct.

Whether or not a Player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence depends upon the state of mind of the Player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.

For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him. The state of a Player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. If the matter is heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal Jury will weigh the evidence of the Player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The Player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal Jury. Notwithstanding what the Player says, the Tribunal Jury may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the Reportable Offence.

IMPACT
Consideration will be given as to whether the impact is Low, Medium, High or Severe. In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to several factors.

Firstly, consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the Player who was offended against.

Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury, particularly in the following cases:

» Intentional head-high strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist, raised forearm or elbow;​

(A) STRIKING, KICKING

Striking and kicking are interpreted in accordance with their commonly understood meaning. A strike would usually be by hand, arm or elbow and will generally not apply to other contact using the body. A kick is generally applied to contact by foot or leg.

Under the Classifiable Offences, a strike or kick requires more than negligible impact. Where a strike, for example, does not have more than negligible impact, it is still open to the MRO to charge a Player with Striking under the Fixed Financial Offences table where it is satisfied that, notwithstanding the result, the intention was to commit an act constituting a Reportable Offence. Where no contact is made, the MRO can charge a Player with an Attempt to Strike or Kick, which are also Fixed Financial Offences.

(B) CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN STRIKES

For the purpose of these Guidelines, all Players should note that the following factors are considered when determining the classification of a Striking offence:

Intent: Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, the fact that an act of striking occurred behind the play or off the ball or during a break in play or with a raised forearm or elbow is usually consistent with the strike being intentional.

Impact: Notwithstanding any other part of these guidelines, any Careless or Intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as “Low Impact” even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved.

 

[jonbe54]

I doubt it

Ablett means bums on couches for the media and money through the till for the betting agencies - the AFL are the front for them.

The outcome seems obvious.

 

[sideswipe]

He is definitely gone on this one. AFL has been very clear about punches - especially to the scone.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dynamics]

Gone.

I wonder what the baby Jesus thinks of Gary's fists and elbows of love.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Its very low impact so a week at best. Adding in the Ablett discount factor it will be nothing at all and instead he will be given a knighthood from the Queen.

 

[Anzacday]

to the scone

At the risk of derailing the thread.
I'd love to know where the term scone when referencing the head came from

 

[sideswipe]

At the risk of derailing the thread.
I'd love to know where the term scone when referencing the head came from

Same place as bonce?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

At the risk of derailing the thread.
I'd love to know where the term scone when referencing the head came from

Good question.

I'd like to know , does a ranga have a pumpkin scone?

 

[jonbe54]

At the risk of derailing the thread.
I'd love to know where the term scone when referencing the head came from

So would I anzac and I'm a senior - was a well established saying as I first remember hearing it as a 5 or 6 year old.

 

[DinoSoar]

It is getting beyond ridiculous now, this is 3 incidents in 4 weeks (GAJ must have pulled his head in last week as he was on track for a hat trick ). If anyone thinks he hasn’t been given leniency because of his name and reputation then that is one naive outlook on the world of the AFL. It was a key pillar of his defence for the 1st incident - “good bloke, never been reported before, xxx number of games with a clean record, Brownlow medallist” etc, etc, etc. And then, well would you look at that ... he’s gone and been all clumsy 2 weeks in a row. So the MRO with egg on his face from the week before, has no other option other than the “nothing to see here” decision. This is further complicated by another high profile Brownlow medallist in Fyfe doing a very similar thing in the same round. Can’t let one off whilst sanctioning the other, therefore both are off the hook. The very clear message is that it is ok to be leading with your elbows as long as you have a “name” and are high profile. If any of these incidents were done by a lesser light, no name player then it would be a 1 week holiday to work on your bumping/tackling technique.

The argument that GAJ’s first contact was low and the then elbow slipped high as a second action doesn’t excuse it, others have been suspended despite this. Levi Greenwood copped 1 week for his elbow that went high during the second motion of the bump on Bombers’ Merrett last year - that’s one that comes to mind and I’m sure there are many other examples from other clubs.

Now GAJ has gone the punch and his defence is that it was just a little “clumsy and undisciplined”. So much “clumsiness” from such an experienced player ... first is was elbows now a fist going rogue, Christian is going to be in such a twist trying to spin little Gazza out of this one.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The clumsiest player I have seen since Matthew Lloyd.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Nothing in it except a great big dive

Was Rance playing?