I thought Gaz was in more trouble this week than the Shiel hit. Looked like he went out of his way to make contact. …
Craziness I tells ya.
Does anyone really know what the rules are? Even if you do know the rules word for word it means nothing because the umpire he can make a decision based on his opinion of an incident, and over ride the rules and do the opposite. Excellent. Now we all know we don’t stand, sit or play.
Actually it pays not to know the rules then you have no expectation and no disappointment.
1 Like
holy ■■■■, i only just saw the nat fyfe elbow. fmd, how the heck can a player not be rubbed out for that. this game is toast.
4 Likes
AFL great Dermott Brereton whacks the AFL Tribunal system and the prior opportunity ruleDERMOTT BRERETON, Herald Sun
Picture [Big Bad Barry Hall] or David Rhys-Jones running in the opposite direction of the football, then running off their line, then raising their elbow and then jumping at an opponent with an elbow aimed toward their head.
They don’t quite land the elbow so there is no real damage done, but the contact takes the opponent off his feet.
It is an action with “intent”.
Can you imagine an old-fashioned tribunal led by Neil Busse delivering any other outcome than a two-week suspension?
Now substitute Gary Ablett in the same scenario.
There’s only one difference — Gazza got off, again.
Why? Because we assume Gazza plays without any real malice and his North Melbourne opponent last week, Sam Wright, got up.
I am wrapped Ablett is free to play this weekend, it is wonderful to see him in such good form and clearly enjoying his footy.
But I am bewildered as to how we have let our rules completely morph into something that they were never intended to be.
Correct me if I am wrong, but from memory there has always been a longstanding rule in AFL/VFL called “attempting to strike”.
It has always been a reportable offence.
Rarely would someone be suspended, but the report would be made and a reprimand would be handed out.
The next level up was “striking”. If the intent was to strike someone illegally and contact was made, the charge was still “striking”.
Gary Ablett’■■■■■ on Dylan Shiel. Picture: AAP Images
Gary Ablett collects Sam Wright.
At the lower end of this range the player could expect a “severe reprimand”, but if the tribunal had a bad day, the player could expect a one or two-week suspension.
The next level up, again, was “striking”. But if the player hit suffered an injury, a heavy penalty would apply.
But some time during the last decade or so, the action and intent had become less important than the injury sustained.
It’s a bit like getting a good behaviour bond for attempted murder because the victim did not suffer any injuries — we can all move along with just a donation into the poor box on the way out.
Really, how did we get to this?
I am the most suspended player for close to 90 years and even I think the current format is deplorable and weak in leadership by the controlling body.
Intent is what we should be examining, not the club medical officer’s report.
If we have a care for the game, we don’t want people making actions that are dangerous and dangerous in their intent.
Barry Hall’■■■■■ on Brent Staker.
I have seen players at under-14, under-15 and under-16 level attempt to play in the same style and get it horribly wrong.
Yet these kids are trying to emulate what they see on TV.
If an umpire can penalise James Sicily for a push to the chest while behind play, (which I agree with) how can we let an action that has the capability to break a jaw go unpunished?
I just don’t get it.
2 Likes
This is when you know you farked up.
1 Like
I’ve got a Chinese wall for Gil - it’s one of those new ones they made in Xinjiang.
It has made a massive difference to the aviation industry. Authorities can still cover things up within their own area, but where there is independence between bodies it is far far more difficult. It costs more, due to additional admin costs but it is a much better system than the one that operated under the of Commonwealth Department of Civil Aviation for instance. They set the standards, checked the planes, licensed the aircraft engineers, made the regulations, ran the ATC, ran the airports and investigated the accidents.
I don’t think the AFL could care less what anyone says or thinks. They have given over the power to decide when, what and who to the Umpires. But; as no one can in the game is allowed to criticise the Umpires, except the AFL, and they seldom do.
Who is responsible??? The onus is on the player.
This week I’d like to see one of our players launch themselves from a goalpost - Arya Stark like - elbow extended and hit a Freo player in the head.
Should be no free kick and 0 weeks.
Both the Fyfe and Ablett decisions are ■■■■■■■ disgraceful and Christian needs to be held to account.
How could either of these be deemed insufficient force? Look at the players head being hit and how it rocks back. Neither hits were incidental or accidental but deliberate. I would like to see an independent view from a respected doctor who works in the brain trauma area.
"Signs of a concussion usually appear within a few minutes or hours of a head injury.
But occasionally they may not be obvious for a few days, so it’s important to look out for any problems in the days following a head injury.
It is also widely accepted now that cumulative smaller hits to the head, that don’t necessarily cause concussion, can have serious impacts over time.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/most-dangerous-head-hits-may-be-the-milder-ones/
These MRP/AFL decisions are totally negligent, irresponsible and dangerous to future players of the game.
‘Back in the day’ the game was what it was, but even so Ablett and Fyfe would have both been suspended for their hits. Now with more scientific studies and evidence to support such suspensions the AFL is completely out of step with all of the current medical advice, scientific studies and the expectations of the wider community.
Disgraceful.
1 Like
Got to look after the boys who might end up in the big house - they’re the next AFL role models and the AFL they’re just protecting the culture.
So I see on the TV that Jetta copped a week for a sling tackle and being that the umpire gave HIM the free and a goal resulted does the umpire get stood down?
■■■■ right off! It was Margetts.
Against league rules for him to give a free against WCE.
3 Likes
Couldn’t agree more. It is Ablett who can, apparently, do whatever he likes and not be held accountable.
Surely Mumford doesn’t get done for that hit on Murphy? If Ablett and Co get off for blatant head strikes than that is nothing.
1 Like
No one mentions the fact that in both high contacts by Ablett they were late.
Both players had already disposed of the ball.
I’ve never understood how that can be judged as careless or wreckless, or whatever it’s called these days, rather than intentional.
That would be logical.
However, you need to factor in that Murphy went to hospital as a result of the hit and that is a bad look for the gameTM. Also, Mumford is not a Brownlow medallist so he doesn’t get the benefit of that unofficial penalty reduction/defence.
Easy for him to say, nobody’s ever going to get him in the neck.
1 Like
About a month back @wimmera1 and I were wondering how he should attack this contest, if what he did was worth a free kick and fine.
The answer was he should’ve ignored the ball, jumped and elbowed him the Saints guy in the head.
Seems so obvious now.
1 Like
Mumford not in trouble, good, should never have been an issue.
Saw Thomas sent to tribunal for abusing an ump by calling him a fing cheat.
1 Like