35 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

No suspension because apparently there was no head contact to the ground.

I laughed, assuming you were making a joke of some kind, so I visited the AFL website to see what the ACTUAL reason was for Mumford getting off.

"Tippett's right shoulder and right side of his body make contact with the turf, while his head does not hit the ground at any stage during the tackle," the MRP said in its findings. 

Now I am not laughing.

We joked last week about the hilarious AFL/1984 similarities, but this is dead on serious "the chocolate ration has been increased" stuff.

They are literally telling us something did not happen, that did, and that we have evidence for. I guess all that's missing is for some poor sap called Winston in the AFL's PR department to start erasing the footage.

17 minutes ago, Choke said:

I laughed, assuming you were making a joke of some kind, so I visited the AFL website to see what the ACTUAL reason was for Mumford getting off.

"Tippett's right shoulder and right side of his body make contact with the turf, while his head does not hit the ground at any stage during the tackle," the MRP said in its findings. 

Now I am not laughing.

We joked last week about the hilarious AFL/1984 similarities, but this is dead on serious "the chocolate ration has been increased" stuff.

They are literally telling us something did not happen, that did, and that we have evidence for. I guess all that's missing is for some poor sap called Winston in the AFL's PR department to start erasing the footage.

Subtlety of their wording during the tackle 'Choke' - they were desperate to get Mummy off so they would say look can't you all see: his head hit the ground after the tackle, see Mummy had let go, obviously Tippett is having a snooze, yadda yadda yadda...they can magically tell us we are seeing things.  Joke of a tribunal. 

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

21 hours ago, SaberFang said:

Sacking a coach who had them on an upwards trajectory didn't help either. They've had no luck with injuries but Eade is clearly the wrong man for the job.

Odd call on Eade indeed. 

So if Mumford picks up a small player and deliberately throws him into a goal post, it will not be dangerous if he lets go before the player hits the post.  

24 minutes ago, sue said:

So if Mumford picks up a small player and deliberately throws him into a goal post, it will not be dangerous if he lets go before the player hits the post.  

Well, he's only trying to grind his bones to make his bread. In fairness, the small player may have stolen his magic harp.

49 minutes ago, sue said:

So if Mumford picks up a small player and deliberately throws him into a goal post, it will not be dangerous if he lets go before the player hits the post.  

That precedent was set last year with Hodge & Wingard...

On 11 September 2016 at 9:40 AM, deejammin' said:

Nobody on here, but the AFL media machine will go nuts about it and at some point patronisingly tell struggling clubs that GWS has the blueprint to success while we all wonder how the hell any team can get 30 first round draft picks over 3 years. 

Gold Coast has stuffed it up but also had bad luck, if O'meara, Swallow, Ablett and co played 20 games together for this season with Lynch in the forward line they would be in serious finals contention. They could be pushing for finals next year with a better run with injuries and some good trades.

We'll never know how much was concessions how much was astute management. If we could go back in time and halve the concessions and salary cap given to both teams my guess would be that we would see a more even competition with GWS having more good will as they would earn their success like every other club.

 Hawks, Saints, Norf waited something like 40 years to enjoy their first finals successes. Dogs have had but one 60 years ago.  But the AFL are determined that their new synthetic babies should not have to wait, and stuff the foundation clubs. 

The first thing Mumford does after he throws this bloke into the ground is look over to make sure he made a good job of it. Guilty!!!

Mumford's tackle was IMO borderline. It wasn't the two-move sling tackle we've seen before (e.g. Gibbs last year). But at the same time, he grabbed Tippett's arm, pinned it, then dragged him downwards. What else could possibly have resulted from that movement?

The MRP's statement is horrendous. Clearly Tippett's head hit the ground. 

How did Hodge once again get off his kidney punch to Selwood? Surely it was worth a fine. He is the luckiest player in the AFL, with the MRP. 

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

How did Hodge once again get off his kidney punch to Selwood? Surely it was worth a fine. He is the luckiest player in the AFL, with the MRP. 

It can't have been Hodge. He's a 'top bloke' and a 'good guy'. They don't go around kidney punching, or throwing people into goal posts, or drink driving.

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

How did Hodge once again get off his kidney punch to Selwood? Surely it was worth a fine. He is the luckiest player in the AFL, with the MRP. 

Yet Burgoyne had the cheek to say umpires need to protect Mitchell!  "Obviously, he is getting targeted a bit...It's a hard one for the umpires as well...but if a player is being targeted as he was on the weekend, I would have thought one free kick here or there would definitely help when they (taggers) step over the mark". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-finals-2016--hawthorn-v-western-bulldogs--hawks-need-to-be-better-protect-sam-mitchell-says-shaun-burgoyne-20160912-gre6cv.html

Obviously, Burgoyne didn't notice the work his teammates put into Joel Selwood, off the ball! 

Now watch the umpires give Mitchell more frees next week! 

Hawkes - such a hypocritical sooky team!

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Good to see that Isaac Smith had at least three different reasons for the smile,  the Geeling player who he actually smiled at hasn't pushed him under the bus

 

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yet Burgoyne had the cheek to say umpires need to protect Mitchell!  "Obviously, he is getting targeted a bit...It's a hard one for the umpires as well...but if a player is being targeted as he was on the weekend, I would have thought one free kick here or there would definitely help when they (taggers) step over the mark". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-finals-2016--hawthorn-v-western-bulldogs--hawks-need-to-be-better-protect-sam-mitchell-says-shaun-burgoyne-20160912-gre6cv.html

Obviously, Burgoyne didn't notice the work his teammates put into Joel Selwood, off the ball! 

Now watch the umpires give Mitchell more frees next week! 

Hawkes - such a hypocritical sooky team!

And I don't believe for one minute that it wasn't a prepared comment, given to him by the FD.