Mumford facing ban over Ablett tackle

[Dogs 13]

Mumford facing ban over Ablett tackle

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...ing-ban-over-ablett-tackle-20100510-uobx.html

May 10, 2010 - 5:19PM

AAP

Sydney face losing ruckman Shane Mumford for their next two AFL games after he was hit with a suspension for rough conduct over a dangerous tackle on Geelong star Gary Ablett.

Mumford can either accept a two-game ban if he pleads guilty, or risk a three-match suspension by fighting the charge.

 

[_Mike_]

Having Mumford out would be great news for the dogs, and possibly force Bradshaw into the role.

 

[smashh]

one will do
leaves them with pyke and white through the rucks

 

[bulldogsman]

Having Mumford out would be great news for the dogs, and possibly force Bradshaw into the role.

Umm... No way. Jesse White played ruck most of last year. Goodes would be next option. No way will Bradshaw ruck.

 

[wayniac]

This inconsistency is ridiculous.

Last year Aker was absolutely smashed in a tackle like that and no suspension resulted (I think it it was against Brisbane Lions).

Now we have Mumford gets 3 games and it's that well known Brownlow medallist Gary Ablett.

Two weeks ago they were giving out frees to Ablett and Judd because the AFL umpiring committee wanted to protect the "elite" players.

Crikey, we have two Brownlow medallists in Aker and Cooney and they don't get "elite" treatment.

The Mumford penalty is over the top, this kind of tackle should be outlawed but Ablett over-posseses so much, doesn't get pinged for holding the ball when he's swung around 360 degrees on his halo.

One game ban should suffice, so that Mumford misses the Manuka game

 

[Bulldog Brent]

Swans have challenged .... this will be a very interesting case.

 

[Gus]

So basically the ruling is: tackling gablett is a reportable offence?

 

[always right]

It would be handy to have Mumford out (although I really fear Goodes being thrown into the ruck) but it would be an indictment on the game if he was rubbed out.

Not sure why there is a view this sort of tackle should be outlawed. It was a legal tackle in the one motion. The only problem is the ball spilled out once the action commenced. Hard tackle but fair.....I'd be rapt if one of our blokes did it.

 

[The Coon Dog]

I haven't seen it, but it's got to be worth a week!

 

[Pigdog]

Not sure why there is a view this sort of tackle should be outlawed. It was a legal tackle in the one motion. The only problem is the ball spilled out once the action commenced. Hard tackle but fair.....I'd be rapt if one of our blokes did it.

The umpire had already blown his whistle before the tackle had begun.

There also has to be some sort of duty of care when a player has his arms pinned.

 

[who_let_the_dogs_out]

Having Mumford out would be great news for the dogs, and possibly force Bradshaw into the role.

Why would Bradshaw go into the ruck? Definitely not.

They guy is pretty short and never went into the ruck during his time at Brisbane.

Would have to be Goodes into the ruck... I'd fancy Mike Pyke will get a run this week though, which spells good news for our midfield. Huddo will have a field day

 

[MF]

Roos has said that Goodes won't be playing in the ruck again after his injury there several years ago. If Mumford misses it will most likely be Pyke/White in the ruck.

 

[Ant_]

Why would Bradshaw go into the ruck? Definitely not.

They guy is pretty short and never went into the ruck during his time at Brisbane.

Yep that and his knees are suspect, wtf would you want to risk him crashing into a ruckmen?

 

[Dazb86]

It would be a shame if he was rubbed out for that incident.

 

[Aquamarinejewel]

Mumford out for two weeks...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s-three-week-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1225864676734

UPDATE 6.10pm: SYDNEY ruckman Shane Mumford has won a one-week discount but will still miss the next two weeks for his dangerous tackle on Gary Ablett.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s-three-week-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1225864676734

 

[dogwatch]

Having Mumford out would be great news for the dogs, and possibly force Bradshaw into the role.

People seem to have the impression Bradshaw is a monster because he is solid and often takes one of the KPF roles but Bradshaw is the same height and weight as Dale Morris (190cm, 92kg).

Would we ruck with Morris? I think not.

Sydney have to look elsewhere for backup ruck options.

 

[doggiesin08]

This inconsistency is ridiculous.

Last year Aker was absolutely smashed in a tackle like that and no suspension resulted (I think it it was against Brisbane Lions).

Now we have Mumford gets 3 games and it's that well known Brownlow medallist Gary Ablett.

Two weeks ago they were giving out frees to Ablett and Judd because the AFL umpiring committee wanted to protect the "elite" players.

Crikey, we have two Brownlow medallists in Aker and Cooney and they don't get "elite" treatment.

The Mumford penalty is over the top, this kind of tackle should be outlawed but Ablett over-posseses so much, doesn't get pinged for holding the ball when he's swung around 360 degrees on his halo.

One game ban should suffice, so that Mumford misses the Manuka game

Cooney gets a decent run from the umps

 

[wayniac]

Cooney gets a decent run from the umps

Is that a newspaper headline?

Try this one:

Ablett and Judd get 50 metre penalties awarded.

Ablett and Judd were both awarded 50 metre penalties because the AFL today nominated that elite players who were too closely tagged would be given extra protection.

There that's fixed it up for you.

 

[Dazb86]

I have noticed Cooney is getting his fair share of holding the man free kicks this year compared with previous seasons.

At times last year (particuarly against Ling0 Cooney would be trying to burst at the ball and ling would be clearly holding him back with no free paid.

This year he's been getting a fair go.


Still though. To be rubbed out for that Ablett tackle is a disgrace.

 

[wayniac]

I have noticed Cooney is getting his fair share of holding the man free kicks this year compared with previous seasons.

At times last year (particuarly against Ling0 Cooney would be trying to burst at the ball and ling would be clearly holding him back with no free paid.

This year he's been getting a fair go.


Still though. To be rubbed out for that Ablett tackle is a disgrace.

I just want consistency. In the case of Carlton vs Geelong, 50M penalties were awarded based on the "Elite" designation of Ablett and Judd.

AFl must be the only game in the world where every decision is double scrutinized after the game and the umpire interpretation is varied by the rules committee prior to the game with a media announcement.

Worse than that, it's the only game I can think of where holding the ball decisions depend on which quarter is being played, what the score difference is etc.

Smashing a blokes head into the turf is not on but it happened to Aker last year and the commentators seemed half pleased, as if Aker somehow deserved to get smashed illegally because he hasn't always acted like an Angel. Aker has never been a "sniper" to quote that hypocrite Campbell Brown but the AFL media love a story that isn't there about what a villain Aker (or Bazza) is.

Last years final against Geelong demonstrated the hypocrisy when Selwood head-hunted Ward and Higgins and didn't get reported or charged. This is the same guy who "bravely" charges into packs but also ducks his head and scores more frees than he should as a result.

 

[Sween54]

The tackle was a little long but as has been stated both ablett and judd seem to get a fair bit of time to dispose of the ball, so is understandable that mumford tackled they way he did. 3 weeks seems a harsh sentence, but not as bad as mcguire 1 week for belting boltan with his cheek bone. But should help us this week Should !!!

 

[flamethrower]

I wasn't surprised that Mumford got suspended for that. The AFL DVD clearly states that players who pin their opponent in a tackle and then lift them and drive them into the ground will be in trouble.

The lifting part, like in the NRL, is the problem. Mumford lifts Ablett off the ground before slamming him into the turf, leaving the little champ with blurred vision.

There were 2 other incidents this year that were highlighted to question the AFL about inconsistencies, but in both of those cases - one involving Ryan O'Keefe against the Lions and one with Lenny Hayes - the players were pinned and slammed into the ground but there was no lifting action.

Mike Pike and Jesse White will most likely be in the ruck for the Swans. Paul Roos has been happy with Pike's development since last season and he wasn't too bad against a rampant Geelong last Sunday.

 

[wayniac]

I wasn't surprised that Mumford got suspended for that. The AFL DVD clearly states that players who pin their opponent in a tackle and then lift them and drive them into the ground will be in trouble.

The lifting part, like in the NRL, is the problem. Mumford lifts Ablett off the ground before slamming him into the turf, leaving the little champ with blurred vision.

There were 2 other incidents this year that were highlighted to question the AFL about inconsistencies, but in both of those cases - one involving Ryan O'Keefe against the Lions and one with Lenny Hayes - the players were pinned and slammed into the ground but there was no lifting action.

Mike Pike and Jesse White will most likely be in the ruck for the Swans. Paul Roos has been happy with Pike's development since last season and he wasn't too bad against a rampant Geelong last Sunday.

AFL has gone down the route that Rugby Union went years ago. In their desire to differentiate the game from the rugby codes, they have turned tackling into a skill that needs far too much care from the tackler and a raft of interpretations from the umpires.

What should happen:

Legging should be totally legal. Why? Because it's almost impossible to injure the tackled player by legging him and it's a legitimate way to halt a guy giving him time to dispose of the footy. If he goes down, it's holding the ball.

In the back should be legal too, too open to interpretation. You caught the guy in possession and you got pinged? Crazy.

Anything above the shoulder is out. That should satisfy most people, although the Rugby League guys don't care too much as long as their head isn't severed from their body.

The game is too soft at the moment, tackling is poor generally as a result of the laws that apply.

While I'm at it, let's stop all the whining about 6 days between games. The league guys play State of Origin flat out and get up for a regular game 3 days later. Let's have each team play each other twice in the season, deal with the "onerous" burden. Who knows, they might reduce the crazy number of interchanges to a sane number and last the pace of a game better. Oops, Rugby League already did that.

 

[Ant_]

What should happen:

Legging should be totally legal. Why? Because it's almost impossible to injure the tackled player by legging him and it's a legitimate way to halt a guy giving him time to dispose of the footy. If he goes down, it's holding the ball.

Tell that to Peter Foster

 

[wayniac]

Tell that to Peter Foster

Was he playing in 1890?

Tell it to Harry Poole....

Lower, 22, broke his fibula and will miss up to eight weeks.

Hawks Simon Taylor and Brad Sewell also suffered broken bones in the clash.

The injury occurred while Lower was laying a tackle, but a proper diagnosis of its severity was hampered by the violent storms that swept Melbourne on Saturday afternoon.

Can you say Nathan Brown, Scott Pendlebury, Matt Maguire, Chris Newman.

All were legged?