MRP / Trib. Ablett found NOT GUILTY of intentional strike

Remove this Banner Ad

You actually watch the context of the vision ablett jumps up to try and smother the over the top hand pass and collects him high with an open hand and a follow through forearm that does no damage at all.

Was not intentional as it had relevancy to a spoil attempt.

You actually look at the positioning of his arms and hands and it was positioning ready to spoil a Handpass, not take out a player.

Challenge asap
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ok firstly I won't be spoken to like that and will hopefully be backed up by admins because to make a comment and then straight away be attacked is disgraceful.

I wrote if Martin gets a week in the context that Ablett should get nothing because the two incidents were chalk and cheese. Also sick of them freezing a camera on point of impact like that can be used when the games at a million miles per hour and Ablett's smaller...

You think that's being attacked? Literally just said 'are you honestly comparing the two?' Attacking would be something along the lines of 'are you a f*cking idiot?' or something like that. Nothing of any ill will was said, your position was just questioned.

Might want to stay off big footy, or any other forums if you think that's what being attacked is...
 
You actually watch the context of the vision ablett jumps up to try and smother the over the top hand pass and collects him high with an open hand and a follow through forearm that does no damage at all.

Was not intentional as it had relevancy to a spoil attempt.

Challenge asap

There's the grounds for having this thrown out forthwith right there.
 
Cousins from Hawks got 1 week for the exact same thing last week. Pull the other one.

Absolutely deserves a week.

None of them deserve a week off, both incredibly soft, but one has to wonder, how Tom Mitchell gets off his last year and Gaz cops a week for this? Please try to justify that.
 
You think that's being attacked? Literally just said 'are you honestly comparing the two?' Attacking would be something along the lines of 'are you a f*cking idiot?' or something like that. Nothing of any ill will was said, your position was just questioned.

Might want to stay off big footy, or any other forums if you think that's what being attacked is...

Just be careful judging and think before you write and don't enter threads with biased or already closed minded views. Bad look for you and your club.
 
Just be careful judging and think before you write and don't enter threads with biased or already closed minded views. Bad look for you and your club.

Wasn't me who originally said it...lol. Was just clarifying using context. I have no skin in this game. Just think you need to probably reassess what you think being 'attacked' is
 
There's the grounds for having this thrown out forthwith right there.

Shield hand passes over the top and ablett jumps from across with two open palms and slides across smothering shiels face and the forearm follows.

It’s obviously a smother attempt that missed the mark but solely with intention of smothering the ball not to hit the player.

Should easily be able to clear with appeal as there was no intent to strike
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I know I shouldn’t be shocked but I am. Had completely written off that he’d get a week for it. Ridiculous. Could use a rest but we should still challenge purely on principal.
 
Correct decision he should definitely miss 1 week! :)

if you were playing any other team, I would be saying that it is a pathetic decision and he should get bonus points for smacking that prick.

Michael Christian just flips a coin i think.
 
I’m not surprised at all, thought a week is probably right.

No reason we shouldn’t challenge it though considering hipwood got a $2000 fine for pretty much the same thing.
 
Shield hand passes over the top and ablett jumps from across with two open palms and slides across smothering shiels face and the forearm follows.

It’s obviously a smother attempt that missed the mark but solely with intention of smothering the ball not to hit the player.

Should easily be able to clear with appeal as there was no intent to strike

The nonsense about 'leaving his feet' is intended to convey the image of someone who is desperately trying to initiate damaging impact on their opponent. When in fact Ablett is clearly jumping to try to intercept the footy as it is looped over him to Langford.

If he was interested in doing Shiel some damage, he would have led with his shoulder rather than his outstretched arms.

If the AFL upholds this suspension after the Cats have a chance to properly explain the biomechanics involved in the incident, it will just about be the clearest evidence yet of the arbitrary bias inherent in the system.

Stand strong, Geelong. Gaz must be defended from the idiocy of this charge being upheld. Get in there, state our case stridently, and let the common sense understanding of events then speak for itself.

No reasonable explanation of events could see what Gaz does in the course of play here as 'intentional'. Unless you're including his intent to stop the movement of the footy by the Essendon players involved in this particular incident.

Seriously, the AFL just gets more obtuse and ridiculous by the week.
 
Post #37 pretty much sums up the way I saw it, plus the "strike" to the neck was little more then a push, be bloody annoyed if we don't appeal (pretty sure we will though)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Ablett found NOT GUILTY of intentional strike

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top