Mummy gets a week

Remove this Banner Ad

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
Mummy's return delayed further after striking ban - http://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-25/mummys-return-delayed-further-after-striking-ban

Think this sucks a bit. Mummy was reacting to being put in a headlock. If the ump paid the free kick he should have then it need never have happened.

That said you cant strike a player so it comes under the s**t happens rule. I'd never be critical if Mummy refusing to be bullied though.

How it got out of hand in a practice match is a worry. Thetlre's a pretty cost relationship between the Swans and us at the club executive level, a lot less so for the players I think.

Could be a couple of physical ganes thus year with Phil having a go at Buddy in his podcast last year as well.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Quote part of the post and draw an absurd conclusion. Why am I not surprised.

So what did you mean by "If the ump paid the free kick he should have then it need never have happened. "

If a player doesn't agree with an umps call, then it's OK for them to lose their nut?
 
So what did you mean by "If the ump paid the free kick he should have then it need never have happened. "

If a player doesn't agree with an umps call, then it's OK for them to lose their nut?
It's ok not to meekly submit to being put in a headlock absolutely.
 
So not meekly submitting = committing a reportable offense?

No middle ground there?
That's the problem with the stalker clown quoting out of context. If you read the OP I said you cant strike a player in the next sentence. If you started there and not his mis quite this wouldn't be necessary.
 
The umpire didn’t have time to pay a free kick, Mumford swung anyway.

s**t happens, silly of him to lash out like that but you see little things like this happen even in Intra clubs or match sim. Much less actual practice games against genuine opposition.

You’d rather him do it now rather than round 23.

Going to be a long thread if nobody just simply agrees with the OP though
 
Mummy refusing to be bullied ? Yeah poor guy being bullied by the nasty Swan player.


For what it's worth thought it was more a open handed forceful push to the face than anything and a fine would have been sufficient seeing as no harm done from the action but he's not the brightest guy. Wonder how he is going to cope with all the coke banter.
 
That's the problem with the stalker clown quoting out of context. If you read the OP I said you cant strike a player in the next sentence. If you started there and not his mis quite this wouldn't be necessary.

I did start there, and reached this point by following your replies.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He can still play from round 3 though? This 1 week and the club sanctioned 2 weeks don't need to be separate do they?
Yeah they do. He now cant play against the Tigers in round 3. I think a club imposed sanction for missing training for example is a bit different to Mummy's. The penalties had to be agreed with the AFL or presumably they'd have imposed their own.
 


We dont challenge often, so hopefully the legal people believe we have a strong position.

The only previous challenge I can recall is a fine against Hopper for umpire contact. Tactically we were positioning him behind the ump as was allowed at the time. The AFL refused to budge and we lost. It's been outlawed this year.
 
He's a bit unlucky given it's not your classic strike. But then the AFL can't afford to fall at the first hurdle after grandstanding about stamping out all violence... can they?
 
Fyfe got a week for a similar forearm to the head, albeit with much greater effect.

I don't see why the Giants bothered to challenge it, it'll be just like Barry Hall serving his punch ban while his broken arm healed.
It isn't concurrent with the club ban. At stake is his availability for round 3 v theTigers at Spotless.

There's no penalty if the appeal fails, other than the clubs credibility a bit, I guess.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top