Tribunal = flip of a coin

[legend166]

You blokes are blind if you think that Milburn tackle is anything like the Mumford tackle.

First, the Richmond player lost control of the ball long before Ablett did. Second, it was a 'driving' tackle. Mumford basically slung Ablett and was unlucky that his head hit the ground. There's no way that the Milburn tackle was ending any other way that the guys head hitting the ground.

And Milburn can't even use the "I didn't know he lost the ball" excuse because it was his hand that knocked it out!

Take the Geelong goggles off and actually look at the two incidents.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Yeah Milburn got 4 weeks, reduced to 2 IIRC

[youtube]wasFeA69V78[/youtube]

That was nothing more than just a free kick, same with the Mumford tackle. I can see what they're saying with this, but seriously, it's a bit harsh. It's just nothing but a free kick in my opinion.

 

[Conan Troutman]

Agreed Lone Wolf, was pretty harsh on Mumford IMO. Miburn's penalty, although his tackle was more severe (or at least a had a worse outcome), was harsh too I thought.

 

[lazy1]

How did Dean Polo get 1 week for his whack to the stomach on the Crows player? If Barry Hall did it, it would have been worth at least 6 weeks. The MRP truely is inconsistent.

Barry did do it to Matt Maguire a few years back and got nothing. The incident was deemed as being 'in the play' even though it was 50m from where the ball was.

 

[JUBJUB]

Bateman's seems harsh to me, he got him high but contact surely had to be deemed low, was intentional though so I guess... still, for what he did a week was about all he should have gotten.

Bateman's priors probably didn't help his cause

 

[stellation]

Did they rate it as intentional?

I must admit I hadn't read their ruling on it at the time and assumed that was the only possible difference they could have seen with the ROK one I mentioned. I honestly don't see how it could possibly be assessed as reckless for 2, high for 2, impact for 2 and that hit on ROK apparently doesn't earn anything.

 

[BIGBEZ]

Ablett should have been pinged for incorrect disposal

 

[WoGiTaLiA]

You could give someone a perfectly legit bump, and oops, their head hits the ground and you're suspended for three weeks.

I'm just waiting for the guy who gets ridden when someone flys for a mark and then lands on their head... shouldn't have let him ride you duty of care bullshit.

Tribunal needs to just go. There is no need for it, I don't get why they want to actively try and get rid of players, just makes the game worse.

Why not have purely a special tribunal for offenses that are outside the rules of the game like Barry Hall's punch or Des Headlands flurry.

Things like tackles and bumps are specified in the rules, if you make high contact that is the point of the rule, it's a free kick. Charging has a rule against it, it's 50 if you do it. I just don't get why you bother having rules if you have another set. It's the equivalent of having a cop with a handheld radar pull people over and then having a speed camera 5 meters behind him to ping them twice and justifying the speed camera by saying you have to allow for human error.

Ie the tribunal is just the AFL's way of saying our umpires are incompetent and we need a whole different set of rules in case they miss something. Then we will have another set for when they call it correctly but we don't think their decision to give a free kick and 50 is sufficient...

Bloody stupid system.

 

[No1SwansFan]

That's what happens when you have biased commentary that carries on and on - Pickering and Russell were absolutely doing my head in listening to them yesterday and let me guess - Kelly had no case to answer

There was nothing in the Kelly report. Was a joke of a report in itself.

 

[winty]

You blokes are blind if you think that Milburn tackle is anything like the Mumford tackle.

First, the Richmond player lost control of the ball long before Ablett did. Second, it was a 'driving' tackle. Mumford basically slung Ablett and was unlucky that his head hit the ground. There's no way that the Milburn tackle was ending any other way that the guys head hitting the ground.

And Milburn can't even use the "I didn't know he lost the ball" excuse because it was his hand that knocked it out!

Take the Geelong goggles off and actually look at the two incidents.

Of course they're different. Milburn was unlucky that game was at the Dome. Anywhere else, and the Richmond player probably would've only been dazed rather than concussed.

As for Mumford being unlucky Ablett's head hit the ground, Ablett was lucky he didn't suffer any damage to his neck.

If anything, Mumford's tackle was reckless. How would he feel if Ablett's head hit the turf at an angle and broke Ablett's neck?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Mumford's one is the same as Milburn's from last year or the year before, shouldn't be anything but im not suprised

I doubt it. Milburn saw that the ball was gone and copped his right whack.

 

[asanque]

Mumford's tall so he must get suspended.

Macaffer isn't Buddy, so he gets off.

The only thing the MRP is consistent about is being bad.

 

[chrismcgrath]

.

As for Mumford being unlucky Ablett's head hit the ground, Ablett was lucky he didn't suffer any damage to his neck.

If anything, Mumford's tackle was reckless. How would he feel if Ablett's head hit the turf at an angle and broke Ablett's neck?

YOU HAVE TO BE F@#KING JOKING RIGHT????

 

[Spriteftw3]

Of course they're different. Milburn was unlucky that game was at the Dome. Anywhere else, and the Richmond player probably would've only been dazed rather than concussed.

As for Mumford being unlucky Ablett's head hit the ground, Ablett was lucky he didn't suffer any damage to his neck.

If anything, Mumford's tackle was reckless. How would he feel if Ablett's head hit the turf at an angle and broke Ablett's neck?

If anything what if some of these quick kicks out of packs come out hit a player in the head causing him to fall over and land on his neck breaking it?

 

[winty]

YOU HAVE TO BE F@#KING JOKING RIGHT????

It probably had an extremely small chance of happening, but it's possible. Players in the NFL have been paralyzed after being tackled, and they wear all that padding, as well as a helmet.

Looking at the footage on the news tonight, especially in normal speed, the way Ablett's head hit didn't look good at all.

There was another difference between the Milburn tackle and the Mumford tackle too. The Mumford tackle was done after the league had said in the off season that they would be cracking down on players who sling opponents in a tackle, resulting in their head hitting the ground. Although I'm sure Mumford didn't mean for that to happen, the fact is it did, and as a result he's been cited. Shouldn't cop a 3 week suspension for it though, but then again, Milburn shouldn't have got 4 weeks for his either.

 

[chrismcgrath]

It probably had an extremely small chance of happening, but it's possible. Players in the NFL have been paralyzed after being tackled, and they wear all that padding, as well as a helmet.

Looking at the footage on the news tonight, especially in normal speed, the way Ablett's head hit didn't look good at all.

Thats the point!!!!! WATCH IT AGAIN!!, his head didn't hit the ground!!!

 

[rainman06]

Bateman was lucky to only get the 3 with an early plea. He is a gutless sniper.

 

[winty]

[/b][/u]

Thats the point!!!!! WATCH IT AGAIN!!, his head didn't hit the ground!!!

It must've hit something, as he said he was still dazed after the game, 45 or so minutes after it happened.

 

[krisholio14]

Another joke of a decision from the tribunal.

What a surprise.

 

[Chinners100]

It probably had an extremely small chance of happening, but it's possible. Players in the NFL have been paralyzed after being tackled, and they wear all that padding, as well as a helmet.

Can't really compare the afl to the nfl, their game is completely different based on big hits and explosive plays and hence there is a greater chance of breaking a neck/concussion etc.

the difference between the milburn tackle and the mumford tackle is that ablett STILL had the ball in his hands, and hence it was a legit tackle. milburn was unlucky as well, but they cant be compared

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Good to see justice was served on the Bateman hit

 

[Off The Couch]

There was nothing in the Kelly report. Was a joke of a report in itself.

I know, that was my point - there was nothing in the mumford one either.

 

[Mister B]

Of course they're different. Milburn was unlucky that game was at the Dome. Anywhere else, and the Richmond player probably would've only been dazed rather than concussed.

As for Mumford being unlucky Ablett's head hit the ground, Ablett was lucky he didn't suffer any damage to his neck.

If anything, Mumford's tackle was reckless. How would he feel if Ablett's head hit the turf at an angle and broke Ablett's neck?

Are you on the match review panel by any chance?? Any player that makes a contest risks damage to their body including their neck. Should we ban all physical contact.

From my understanding a slinging tackle is reportable if there are two distinct actions. From what i can see there is one continuous tackle placed on Ablett, not two actions. Ablett also has possession of the ball until a fraction of a second before he hits the turf. So now we stop tackling a player with the ball for fear he may get hurt??

It's s**t comments like yours that lead to new rules that are inconsistently umpired and reported. Don't fuel this mediocre situation.

And as for half the players that got off for head high bumps. How much would Matt McGuire be spewing???

 

[stellation]

It must've hit something, as he said he was still dazed after the game, 45 or so minutes after it happened.

I think the biggest frustration for Swans fans is that just 1 week ago our beloved Ryan O'Keefe was tackled heavily and had his pretty head rammed into the ground in a swinging motion, rather similar to the Mumford/Ablett incident, and it was deemed that there was nothing in it- not a reprimand, carry over points, anything. Just like Gary's, Ryan's head also must have hit something as he had to leave the field looking a tad unwell (I was sitting about 10 metres from him when he was at the bench after it and he did not look good at all).

0 points to 325 points between the two incidents is just staggering.

 

[LordLucifer]

As for Mumford being unlucky Ablett's head hit the ground, Ablett was lucky he didn't suffer any damage to his neck.

If anything, Mumford's tackle was reckless. How would he feel if Ablett's head hit the turf at an angle and broke Ablett's neck?

Pathetic one-eyed response !!

If that tackle is deemed bad enough to earn a suspension then this game is virtually finished for me.

I cannot tolerate this constant watering down of the game to nothing more than a ballerinas conference.

FAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRKKK !!!!