Mumford out for 2

[IBleedBrownNGold]

Please excuse my intrusion, but I just wanted to pass on my thoughts. A few clubs have now been shafted by these new "rules" that the AFL has decided to implement. Our club knows all too well and has dragged themselves through a couple of well publicised appeals in the past 6 months. I think the whole thing is disgusting and severely detrimental to our great game. What next? No tackles allowed?

I hope your club appeals this disgraceful ruling, and if it needs to go to court, I hope they take it that far. I am so sick of this gestapo administration thinking they are bigger than the real stakeholders of this sport. You guys are well within your right to be livid. I would be ready to rip someone's head off if one of our player's was rubbed out for laying a tackle.

 

[swannyfan]

2 actions my ass! As everyone knows, Ablett is so strong through the core, if you don't take him to ground, how else are you going to get him off balance and cause a spillage! How many times have we seen tacklers bring their opponents to ground in order to cause spillage! To use the excuse it was 2 actions is absolutely absurd!

 

[liz]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/11/2896560.htm

This says it's a new rule, which explains a lot. Whenever the AFL changes a rule they always crucify the first person reported under it. I must admit for my part I didn't even know this rule had changed...

Anyway, I hope you appeal and he gets off.

I thought they had introduced it at the start of last season, but could very well be wrong on that. However, they certainly didn't introduce it between rounds 6 and 7, and they seem to have appealed it prior to the final match of round 7.

The "Ablett had a headache" thing is bemusing. While not trying to downplay the potential seriousness of head collisions, he certainly didn't play the rest of the game as if he were suffering any problems. And on OTC, Healy implied that the Swans erred in playing Bolton and O'Keefe this week due to the head collisions they suffered the previous week - and of course we know how ROK's occured.

 

[Dangas]

unfortunate, oh well, lets see how Dan Currie and Pykey will go, not looking forward to Freo match though

 

[liz]

unfortunate, oh well, lets see how Dan Currie and Pykey will go, not looking forward to Freo match though

One could argue that against Freo it barely matters, since any ruckman is going to get beaten.

But since Moore can't run at the moment, with a hurt ankle, do you think we could stick him on Pykey's shoulders and let them ruck in tandem. Pyke's probably strong enough to carry Moore around the ground. Moore could use his footy brain to tell Pykey where to handball to, and he could probably take the kicks himself from his lofty perch.

If the AFL can makes the rules up as they go along, why can't the Swans?

 

[SOPH_CROSS]

One could argue that against Freo it barely matters, since any ruckman is going to get beaten.

But since Moore can't run at the moment, with a hurt ankle, do you think we could stick him on Pykey's shoulders and let them ruck in tandem. Pyke's probably strong enough to carry Moore around the ground. Moore could use his footy brain to tell Pykey where to handball to, and he could probably take the kicks himself from his lofty perch.

If the AFL can makes the rules up as they go along, why can't the Swans?

Haha this is such a good idea made me smile lol



But really am i finally going 2 get my wish come true?

 

[Swans120]

I hope Currie comes in. I have a feeling that Roosy will be tempted to move Jesse into the ruck for the 2 weeks though considering it is only a few weeks. But if Roosy is to stick to his word about wanting Jesse to stay in the forward line and continue to develop, Currie should come in.

WB have an underrated and hard toiler of a ruckman in Hudson but Roughead is only young. So it could be a good week for him to debut, better than debuting against 211.

 

[Rassilon]

Please excuse my intrusion, but I just wanted to pass on my thoughts. A few clubs have now been shafted by these new "rules" that the AFL has decided to implement. Our club knows all too well and has dragged themselves through a couple of well publicised appeals in the past 6 months. I think the whole thing is disgusting and severely detrimental to our great game. What next? No tackles allowed?

I hope your club appeals this disgraceful ruling, and if it needs to go to court, I hope they take it that far. I am so sick of this gestapo administration thinking they are bigger than the real stakeholders of this sport. You guys are well within your right to be livid. I would be ready to rip someone's head off if one of our player's was rubbed out for laying a tackle.

Don't think of it as an intrusion good sir!

I'm glad some other club supporters are seeing this for the issue that it is. It's transcended a simple suspension now, it just goes further to highlight the farcical roulette wheel that the MRP spins.

I'm inclined to agree that this fight needs to get petty. For the good of the land. Appeal!

 

[bedford]

One could argue that against Freo it barely matters, since any ruckman is going to get beaten.

But since Moore can't run at the moment, with a hurt ankle, do you think we could stick him on Pykey's shoulders and let them ruck in tandem. Pyke's probably strong enough to carry Moore around the ground. Moore could use his footy brain to tell Pykey where to handball to, and he could probably take the kicks himself from his lofty perch.

If the AFL can makes the rules up as they go along, why can't the Swans?

Moore hahaha

 

[SouthSwans]

Anyone think Pyke, Goodes and White can do the job?

 

[Testekill]

Really MRP? Really? That was a two weeker? My arse was that worthy of a suspension.

 

[Millington Magic]

Still can't believe this.

 

[Jaeger]

Absolutely disgraceful.

It just shows anything against GAJ is not on.

If Ablett did the same to Mumford, it wouldn't have even been looked at.

 

[Kerrsive]

Still can't believe this.

I'm still in disbelief as well. I seriously can't get my head around it.

Can we, like... do anything?

 

[disgruntled goat]

One could argue that against Freo it barely matters, since any ruckman is going to get beaten.

But since Moore can't run at the moment, with a hurt ankle, do you think we could stick him on Pykey's shoulders and let them ruck in tandem. Pyke's probably strong enough to carry Moore around the ground. Moore could use his footy brain to tell Pykey where to handball to, and he could probably take the kicks himself from his lofty perch.

If the AFL can makes the rules up as they go along, why can't the Swans?

Good idea, but we'd need to get a really, REALLY big jumper to fit over both of them.

 

[Rassilon]

Good idea, but we'd need to get a really, REALLY big jumper to fit over both of them.

Yeah, they can borrow one from Plugger

 

[bedford]

Anyone think Pyke, Goodes and White can do the job?

Goodes won't be in the ruck

 

[TMS]

It just shows anything against GAJ is not on.

Get your hand off it, mate. All these pathetic, paranoid "I feel sorry for Mumford, but Ablett's the reason it happened" posts are getting ridiculous. The issue is with the MRP and their ruling, not who was involved in the incident.

is it one eyed of me to think its a terrible decision?

Far from it. You've got supporters from across the league wanting Mumford to be cleared.

Ridiculous result, and sets a precedent for the remainder of the season that - as someone said earlier - the MRP will still arbitrarily choose when to enforce.

 

[legend166]

Get your hand off it, mate. All these pathetic, paranoid "I feel sorry for Mumford, but Ablett's the reason it happened" posts are getting ridiculous. The issue is with the MRP and their ruling, not who was involved in the incident.

Far from it. You've got supporters from across the league wanting Mumford to be cleared.

Ridiculous result, and sets a precedent for the remainder of the season that - as someone said earlier - the MRP will still arbitrarily choose when to enforce.

I don't think people are blaming Ablett. They're just pointing out that the AFL clearly have different rules for the superstars compared to everyone else.

 

[Skystyler]

PMS, you are a paranoid. No one is attacking your beloved little Gary.

If you ask me the swans blew the defense. Why attempt to argue about the force of the contact? It was forceful, but it wasn't illegal. It was just a tackle. His head bounces off the turf, but it wasn't a spear tackle. Riskatelly's tackle on ROK the week before was FAR more dangerous. And Okeefe was concussed, not just left rubbing his head. Is that not admissable?

 

[The Kipster]

Sorry for jumping on your board lads, but this is one of the worst, if not the worst decision of all time......it was a legit tackle in my view, FFS the AFL is turning our beloved game into a shadow of its former self

 

[TMS]

No one is attacking your beloved little Gary.

Hate to see how you'd respond to someone saying the MRP was right, if this is the best you can come up with when I've been posting in support of Mumford.

Pretty sure I was clear about the issue being the MRP and their ruling, not who was involved in the incident. Therefore, my "beloved little Gary" is irrelevant to the argument that Mumford didn't deserve weeks for a fair tackle. It's (mainly non-Sydney) posters in this thread who keep bringing his name up.

 

[dn41]

as someone said earlier, mumford has copped the worst free kick and worst tribunal decision. Someone must not be a big fan of him.

To all the people talking about ryano getting slammed to the ground in the brisbane game, on the ch10 news in melbourne they said that the swans were going to use that tackle as evidence, it obviously didnt work.

 

[BarneyBent]

Get your hand off it, mate. All these pathetic, paranoid "I feel sorry for Mumford, but Ablett's the reason it happened" posts are getting ridiculous. The issue is with the MRP and their ruling, not who was involved in the incident.

Nobody's blaming Gablett, and if they are, they're idiots. Gablett didn't ask for Mumford to be suspended. But it's true that some players attract more attention than others. If that tackle was laid on Hogan, do you think anything would have come of it? No. Hogan is anonymous, and there isn't that "un-tackle-able" air about him that Gablett has, which makes even neutral or opposition fans, myself included, instinctively think any time he's physically overpowered something untoward is happening. I would have almost understood it being reported on the spot in the heat of the moment, albeit grudgingly. However, once the replay was seen and it was assessed, it should have been thrown out without a moment's hesitation.

Gablett isn't the only one, either. Plenty of players get that sort of protective bias. You could argue Goodes is one of them, and many, many do (though there are plenty of examples to the contrary). Again, it's not a slight on Ablett, it's a slight on the bias that the MRP seems to have shown towards Ablett.

 

[MF]

The thing that pisses me off the most is how uncountable the MRP & tirbunal are to the fans of the game. The whole reason for the overhaul of the previous system was to make it more 'transparent'. I want them to come out and tell us what the difference between the ROK tackle and the GAJ tackle is. And I also want them to explain why other tackles that are exactly the same or worse will go unpunished for the rest of the season. But we all know that won't happen, the AFL, the umpires, the MRP and the tribunal are all completely ****ing infalible and never make any wrong decisions.

Geishen, Demetriou, Anderson, everyone on the rules commitee, all the umpires, all the MRP members, all the tribunal members can go and get ****ed!

[/PSYCHOTIC RANT]