Ablett Reported

Remove this Banner Ad

Tex9798 said:
Hipwoods was in a marking contest and was barely late, actually hit the ball out of his hands as well as making high contact, it's clearly careless.

Jake Lloyd stays on the ground for similar time to Shiel and others this year which is consistent with low impact.

It's obviously high.

Therefore a fine.

Ablett, jumped after Shiel disposed of the ball and hit him with an elbow to the side of the head. It's clearly intentional. Impact is obviously low, knocks Shiel over who stays dow for a bit and it's obviously high.

I don't see what all the fuss is about, I reckon it's super soft too but consistent with similar hits this year.

Dylan Grimes got a week for the softest of hits this year, Elliott never even went down or grabbed his face and he got a week too.
Click to expand...

That wasn’t a marking contest lol. He was never making it, and didn’t. Demonstrated by a proper retaliation, unlike the Essendon one.
Plus he didn’t have eyes for the ball. Just a late spoil with an elbow.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
The Falcon Strike said:
Seriously - you think a Dylan Grimes or Dustin Martin cocked swinging elbow is the same as Ablett's ??

Ablett wasn't swinging a bent elbow - he was pushing with his hands - his incident is a mile below Grimes
Click to expand...

CatFan79 said:
Comparing these is delusional.
Click to expand...
Martin elbowed Kennedy in the shoulder first then collected him high, Kennedy didn't even go down to the ground. Ablett like Grimes ran at his opponent with his elbow raised and made contact.

Tribunal guidelines state that elbows to the head are intentional and high contact. If they're going to be consistent then he should go but he won't.

Amazing how people thought Dustys elbow brushing Kennedy was worth 2 weeks because of potential to cause injury clause being added to the penalty. Only player that has been applied to this year.
 
_RT_ said:
Martin elbowed Kennedy in the shoulder first then collected him high, Kennedy didn't even go down to the ground. Ablett like Grimes ran at his opponent with his elbow raised and made contact.

Tribunal guidelines state that elbows to the head are intentional and high contact. If they're going to be consistent then he should go but he won't.

Amazing how people thought Dustys elbow brushing Kennedy was worth 2 weeks because of potential to cause injury clause being added to the penalty. Only player that has been applied to this year.
Click to expand...

Martin internationally went to strike him, that's what got him in the end. No one reasonable thought it was 2 weeks, the tribunal tossed out the extra week cause you have to apply it to all suspensions given the possibility for injury when doing a illegal action in footy.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chocoholic said:
Martin internationally went to strike him, that's what got him in the end. No one reasonable thought it was 2 weeks, the tribunal tossed out the extra week cause you have to apply it to all suspensions given the possibility for injury when doing a illegal action in footy.
Click to expand...
Kennedy testified at the tribunal that he deliberately moved into Martins path.

Unlike Ablett Martin didn't leave the ground, like Ablett Martins initial contact was not in the head but slid up as he made contact.

I'm not looking at this as an anti Ablett thing as I think he has been one of the best and fairest players I've ever seen, but in this instance if they want to be seen as being consistent then IMO the tribunal must uphold the suspension.
 
_RT_ said:
Kennedy testified at the tribunal that he deliberately moved into Martins path.

Unlike Ablett Martin didn't leave the ground, like Ablett Martins initial contact was not in the head but slid up as he made contact.

I'm not looking at this as an anti Ablett thing as I think he has been one of the best and fairest players I've ever seen, but in this instance if they want to be seen as being consistent then IMO the tribunal must uphold the suspension.
Click to expand...

He left the ground to smother a looped handpass but mistimed it.the two open palms action smothered across the face are clearly the action of an attempted spoil. The forearm follow through was just bad luck.
 
geelong_crazy26 said:
He left the ground to smother a looped handpass but mistimed it.the two open palms action smothered across the face are clearly the action of an attempted spoil. The forearm follow through was just bad luck.
Click to expand...

It’s not a convincing attempt to smother. Not sure anyone smothers with the point of their elbow sticking out like that.
 

Attachments

  • 217E6D38-A9EB-41E3-BB53-A759C7F4DDA6.jpeg
    217E6D38-A9EB-41E3-BB53-A759C7F4DDA6.jpeg
    76.1 KB · Views: 22

(Log in to remove this ad.)

geelong_crazy26 said:
He left the ground to smother a looped handpass but mistimed it.the two open palms action smothered across the face are clearly the action of an attempted spoil. The forearm follow through was just bad luck.
Click to expand...
Might be bad luck but it's still an elbow to the head and that under the tribunal guidelines constitutes a 1 week suspension.

The argument that posters are making that it was a brushing motion is also flawed as his left hand if the one that brushes his face, the right elbow is what connects and it's a high shot.

1557209627548.png
 
BF Tiger said:
It’s not a convincing attempt to smother. Not sure anyone smothers with the point of their elbow sticking out like that.
Click to expand...

I think that was his poor attempt to pull out of the smother last minute but he would have been better off going with it given how it ended up.
 
windyhill said:
You can't argue against his record, first time reported with all the holding,tagging and niggling he cops. Fine or reprimand.
Click to expand...
No doubt that is what it will end up as the tribunal guidelines have a clause that allows them to take into consideration a players lengthy good record. No problem with that being what happens, but I still believe the tribunal should find him guilty.
 
JeanLucGoddard said:
I haven't seen the Hipwood one so can't comment. Cousins got a week for almost identical to what Ablett did.

The issue shouldn't be the "force", it should be that you can't lift your forearm/elbow and strike the headial region.
Click to expand...

 
windyhill said:
You can't argue against his record, first time reported with all the holding,tagging and niggling he cops. Fine or reprimand.
Click to expand...

Fair enough if it's deemed insufficient force, but Jack Riewoldt had a clean record and wasn't given any benefit of the doubt.
 
I expect Ablett to be cleared, but if he is not the tribunal should upgrade the penalty to 1.5 matches to be consistent with Jack Riewoldt’s appeal outcome ($1000 increased to $1500).
 
hawkman said:
Did Richmond even argue that though?
Click to expand...

Not sure; reports weren’t terribly detailed, but Riewoldt clearly felt his character had been impugned. Which it was, as the AFL counsel declared the incident “unsportsmanlike”.

If Ablett is granted this immunity, where is the line? Was his conduct sportsmanlike?
 
Ron The Bear said:
Not sure; reports weren’t terribly detailed, but Riewoldt clearly felt his character had been impugned. Which it was, as the AFL counsel declared the incident “unsportsmanlike”.

If Ablett is granted this immunity, where is the line? Was his conduct sportsmanlike?
Click to expand...

Riewoldt was fined, big difference. It was clumsy without intent and Ablett should be fined in the same manner. That should be it
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Ablett Reported

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top