MRP: 2 weeks for Mumford (what a joke!!)

**Big Al** · 21st June 2011, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by ernie koala

It was a worse looking tackle for sure. He slung him around his hip and all but pile drived into the ground.

Only difference, player wasn't injured...they definitely grade these tackles based mainly on injury outcomes. Which is wrong IMO. Intent should carry more wait.

If you assault someone or drink drive the penalty increases with the damage you do. Can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same here.

**Untamed Snark** · 21st June 2011, 08:56 AM

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/s...620-1gbut.html

**SPC** · 21st June 2011, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Big Al

If you assault someone or drink drive the penalty increases with the damage you do. Can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same here.

I would have thought the opposite logic should apply? If you drink drive you dont get off just because you didnt kill someone - thats just a matter of blind luck - you get penalised for breaking the law in the first place. If the tackle is illegal & you want to stop it, then everyone who completes the tackle in the outlawed manner simply cops the penalty.

**giant** · 21st June 2011, 09:17 AM

Just saw this last night. Gee, there's not a lot to it - and basically he was 10 pts shy of getting four weeks! I'm not sure if I understand this ruling or this direction - seems to really penalise the strong boys.

**Chilcott** · 21st June 2011, 09:25 AM

Don't agree, but that's they way the game is these days and two weeks is reasonable, based on the @@@@e current rules.

Maybe he should stop tackling and introduce a sleeper hold or body drop into his repertoire.

**stellation** · 21st June 2011, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Big Al

If you assault someone or drink drive the penalty increases with the damage you do. Can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same here.

I agree if they judge it as "intentional", when it's judged as "negligent" I think it does need to be looked into a little more.

**dimelb** · 21st June 2011, 09:51 AM

It's pinning the arms to prevent disposal that causes the problem. Tackling, like so much else, has become an increasingly technical business these days, and I don't see how you can change the trend except by more tinkering with the rules. Wonderful prospect that is.

**ugg** · 21st June 2011, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Untamed Snark

Swans may contest Mumford's suspension

Challenging the ban is silly, and would be going down the path of Thomas' and Selwood's contests by their respective clubs and adding an extra week unnecessarily. I'm not sure what argument the club could present to the tribunal. It is also disingenuous for the reporter to say that just because it's GC it won't matter if Mumford misses that game as well. Zac Smith has been brilliant this year (and a smokie for the Rising Star), not to mention the fact that the Suns are the number 1 side in clearances (before last round)

**Yuri H** · 21st June 2011, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Chilcott

Maybe he should stop tackling and introduce a sleeper hold or body drop into his repertoire.

I say the team should be trained in the old Spock-grip/Vulcan nerve pinch. No concussion possible!

**ShockOfHair** · 21st June 2011, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Yuri H

I say the team should be trained in the old Spock-grip/Vulcan nerve pinch. No concussion possible!

I hope more effective than the Judd pressure point pinch.

The MRP works in mysterious ways sometimes but on this point they're position is pretty clear.