MRP / Trib. Gazza cleared (again)

[Hamingja]

I would much rather take risks and push the centre rather than play safe on the boundaries.

Small sample size but it looked really easy to stop at Docklands but has worked at the G.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Geelong Addy: "Chris Scott defends Ablett, says it is poor technique rather than bad intent

Scott denied Ablett was picking off opposition players, instead arguing that the Cats star is using a technique called bumper-barring.

Scott said it is used to stop an opponent after he gives a handball, by blocking him with a forearm to the chest."

https://www.geelongadvertiser.com.a...t/news-story/f4ebf27a1cc8f13b146d0188c3942614

 

[darren forssman]

Norfies forum need a rule book, and their one educated poster who has a grip, is being roundly ignored (and abused by snake, who must work off double screens).

It's the rule they asked for. If you fail to pull up and send another players head into kingdom come, effectively removing him from the game,
and possibly shortening his life, then out you go. Simples.

I assume this in reference to the Durdin incident?

I cannot believe most think he should have got off, he could have elected not to bump Rohan.

 

[Max Milburn]

Small sample size but it looked really easy to stop at Docklands but has worked at the G.

Pushing the boundaries.
Playing safe on the boundaries.
These things are not the same.

 

[Mr X]

Playing safe on the boundaries is what won (2010) and cost (2011) the Pies flags

 

[romeohwho]

The one on Wright clearly wasn't.

Yep, that’s true and it should never have been on report. It’s also probably fair to say that the Wright one was sloppy -late and not really necessary, and that the Shiel incident could have had a worse outcome. Ablett has been a tad narky the past couple of weeks and a little bit lucky and I’d prefer him not to make a habit of chancing his luck every week. That’s all-not a big deal. Moving on. Happy birthday to him!

 

[Zouz Kitty]

"Robinson believes Ablett now “thinks it’s OK to jump off the ground and put his forearms into the head and face of an opposition player”, arguing he has lost the benefit of the doubt which was part of the successful Tribunal case last week.

But Scott simply stated Robinson was “wrong” in his opinion, arguing that Ablett had “poor technique” when trying to “bumper bar” opponents who had just handballed, which he said was extremely common in AFL coaching circles.

“I think you’re wrong when you’re saying he’s all of a sudden started going for defenceless players,” Scott said on Fox Footy.

“I think you said when two players are coming at each other, and one’s not expecting contact...”
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...6VxJjgBZZt71ekOU_m5c1lvbAhl4pEUM6f8A_VNRUaP6E

 

[Seeds]

Geelong Addy: "Chris Scott defends Ablett, says it is poor technique rather than bad intent

Scott denied Ablett was picking off opposition players, instead arguing that the Cats star is using a technique called bumper-barring.

Scott said it is used to stop an opponent after he gives a handball, by blocking him with a forearm to the chest."

https://www.geelongadvertiser.com.a...t/news-story/f4ebf27a1cc8f13b146d0188c3942614

Yes its the old cheating strategy that hawthorn won the 2008 premiership with. The next year the afl made it a 50 m penalty even though no free was called. Hope they introduce it again. Its shameful we are copying the unsociable hawks. Makes me feel a little bit sick inside.

 

[Vdubs]

The one on Wright clearly wasn't.

Wright is his mate

 

[Play it Sam]

I assume this in reference to the Durdin incident?

I cannot believe most think he should have got off, he could have elected not to bump Rohan.

It is, and a reference to a North bogan up in arms. It must be a fine line for the player wanting to impact the play, but as you say, there is precedent and repercussions for those who make the wrong choice (and those on the end of it). It's a shame not all transgressions and penalties have been that clear, with past MVP's inviting controversy with the likes of Hawk's jumper tangle. Compare that to a shaken brain, and one week seems more than fair.

 

[MacStradbroke]

"Robinson believes Ablett now “thinks it’s OK to jump off the ground and put his forearms into the head and face of an opposition player”, arguing he has lost the benefit of the doubt which was part of the successful Tribunal case last week.

But Scott simply stated Robinson was “wrong” in his opinion, arguing that Ablett had “poor technique” when trying to “bumper bar” opponents who had just handballed, which he said was extremely common in AFL coaching circles.

“I think you’re wrong when you’re saying he’s all of a sudden started going for defenceless players,” Scott said on Fox Footy.

“I think you said when two players are coming at each other, and one’s not expecting contact...”
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...6VxJjgBZZt71ekOU_m5c1lvbAhl4pEUM6f8A_VNRUaP6E

scotty wasn't having a bar of Robbo's stance on 360 last night.

 

[Max Milburn]

scotty wasn't having a bar of Robbo's stance on 360 last night.

I know what sort of bumper bar CS was thinking of using on him.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

scotty wasn't having a bar of Robbo's stance on 360 last night.

Wasn't subtle either which I loved, said twice that Robbo was wrong, straight up wrong.
None of that "I understand your point of view, however I think Gaz views it differently" or anything like that, just a straight forward "you're wrong".

 

[Catsace]

Nobody seems to have said it on this thread yet, but happy 35th today Gazza. Maybe the MRP gave you a present this week, and keep the arms down in future. But may the next year or two bring much good footy to come, as so far this year we have all enjoyed seeing.

 

[Vdubs]

Yep, still regardless wouldn’t hurt Ablett to look at his technique. Elbows to the head aren’t great.

true- we can't rely on a Fyfe et al being a pseudo-alibi/ distraction to aid his cause next time(s)

 

[you pick one]

true- we can't rely on a Fyfe et al being a pseudo-alibi/ distraction to aid his cause next time(s)

I reckon you have that ars about face,there was never a case to suspend Ablett there was no Elbow and Fyfe was the beneficiary of the Ablett decision not the other way around.

 

[Vdubs]

I reckon you have that ars about face,there was never a case to suspend Ablett there was no Elbow and Fyfe was the beneficiary of the Ablett decision not the other way around.

maybe
mutually beneficial this weekend, it was still a good distraction
I never thought GAJ's action was report-worthy, but the hullabaloo after the week before, and crazies like Robbo...
As long as there is no recurrence this year of any dubious action, all will be good

 

[you pick one]

I asked this last week with no reply, I'll try again someone might know,but with Gaz not being suspended does he still retain his good record special case get out of jail free card?

 

[Tony Barber]

I asked this last week with no reply, I'll try again someone might know,but with Gaz not being suspended does he still retain his good record special case get out of jail free card?

Yep. Because they have never played it.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Havent read much of the thread - bar the 1st and last pages

But i think he has been a bit lucky - because if i think back to Paul Chapman - re that final against Port ( got 2 weeks - when you think back 20 pts up at 3qtr time - and Chapman playing - you can say thats flag no 4)

But i thought the thing which sunk Chappy - was - both feet were off the ground - and when that occurs ( and the media really highlighted that with Chapman ) i thought you had no defence

1st one with Ablett - because of his unblemished playing record - common sense says he gets off - and i think most supporters of all clubs would agree with that . But the 2nd one against Nth Melb i think he should have got a week

 

[Vdubs]

Havent read much of the thread - bar the 1st and last pages

But i think he has been a bit lucky - because if i think back to Paul Chapman - re that final against Port ( got 2 weeks - when you think back 20 pts up at 3qtr time - and Chapman playing - you can say thats flag no 4)

But i thought the thing which sunk Chappy - was - both feet were off the ground - and when that occurs ( and the media really highlighted that with Chapman ) i thought you had no defence

1st one with Ablett - because of his unblemished playing record - common sense says he gets off - and i think most supporters of all clubs would agree with that . But the 2nd one against Nth Melb i think he should have got a week

The difference is the result of the impact to the head.
In both of GAJ cases, minimal impact, no injury.
In Chappy's case, in a final, Robbie Gray was hit in the head with intent- Chappy turned to make sure he was down, it appeared.

 

[romeohwho]

Haha I see Dermie couldn’t resist in the Hun today. Surprising.

 

[AM]

Haha I see Dermie couldn’t resist in the Hun today. Surprising.

Dermie is a motormouth who not only mangles the language but has a footy IQ that is grossly overrated.

 

[romeohwho]

Dermie is a motormouth who not only mangles the language but has a footy IQ that is grossly overrated.

Exactly.

 

[Partridge]

That rule is crap, Durdins hit was a fair hit and was just an accidental head clash, feel sorry for the bloke.

Exactly. Glad Ablett (correctly) got off, but hope he learns now to keep his arms down. Kind of squishes the ludicrous notion there are automatic suspensions to Geelong players.

That North guy is really, really unlucky. Perfectly fair bump. Garbage that people think that it’s a suspension.