Double standards from the MRP as Ablett cleared

And Gene if they want to grade it reckless that's fine, if they go through the points and he ends up with just a reprimand then fine but don't try to tell me that simply because he was lucky enough to not hit Pickens head (or at least not conclusively) then suddenly the force behind the elbow dropped.

So your argument is that Ablett didn't intend to throw his elbow back and strike Picken? Is it really my bias that is of concern here? Let me ask you this, out of Fyfe and Ablett which action best fits into what we want to see in the AFL? Should the afl be discouraging through suspension someone laying a shepherd in play or someone throwing an elbow behind play?

Punishing people for potential is ridiculous. Every head clash would then need to be punished as the worst grade concussion, every sling tackle punished as if the player broke his neck, every jumper punch as a king hit, because the potential is there for it every time.

What makes that any more intentional then the 100 other cases graded reckless? Your agenda?

Ablett got off because he was Ablett. Most other players (and especially certain players, Imagine Campbell Brown for instance) would have at least been cited for a minimum offence. If the MRP is going to punish players because certain actions have the POTENTIAL to cause serious injury, then this was a classic case in point. It was behind play, Ablett was not "bracing", he lashed out in frustration and anger, the action was intentional and could have resulted in a serious injury, Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the AFL stated it would have no tolerance for? But given the "heat" of the Brownlow Medal favouritism and especially the amount of money (betting) riding on it in conjunction with his status as the poster boy for the leagues image the MRP simply gave way to the pressure and actively sought a "no damage outcome". As an AFL fan, my grievance is not against Ablett personally (he did as many players do... React), but at the inequity demonstrated by the league in handling such cases. The AFL commission and by extension it's judiciary processes are more concerned about their brand and bottom line than any real and often inconvenient sense of equal justice for all. The MRP seems to have no idea if they are meant to be penalising players actions based on their POTENTIAL to cause injury or the ACTUAL injury sustained by the recipient. Several players have been suspended in last few weeks alone despite their actions resulting in no injury whatsoever to the players involved,eg, Steve Johnson's head contact to Ryan Crowly and Matthew Stokes for striking Steven Morris. So if they were not suspended for the "actual damage" they caused, what were they suspended for and why did Ablett get off? It seems the AFL can award its administrators millions in wages, yet can't establish a full time, fully professional judicial department capable of enforcing a consistent judicial process independent of pressures to the contrary, and just as importantly, an umpiring department brought up to the same standard as is expected of the players.

I didn't say it hit his head, I said it made contact, low contact, low impact, intentional, add up the points, give him his discount and go from there, you don't have to hit the head to be suspended.

See I find that logic ridiculous, that he swings a wild elbow and if its 1 inch higher and hits his jaw and smashes its multiple weeks but if its 1 inch lower and hits the chest it suddenly becomes insufficient force? The MRP system was brought in for consistency, the idea that the force applied is different depending on where the impact is made runs contrary to the nature of the entire system, this was an intentional act, low contact and low impact - now that is simple

But then again if the red hot favorite is scratched the count could be far more interesting, leading to more TV interest.

Let's get serious people, of course you can't suspend Ablett for something like that.

I'm not saying Fyfe would win Charlie Gene, i just dont think he should have been suspended for an accident. I dont think anybody should be suspended for an accident in a contact sport.

Gonna be funny when Fyfe gets no where near Abletts total anyway.

Simple, the head is sacrosanct, if you haven't figured this out by now this conversation is pointless. Go find a friend and knock your heads together, it takes very little force to earn some serious pain, now go elbow each other in the chest with the same force you used to headbutt each other ... it'd barely be a tickle in comparison.

Clear whack to the head? okay please show me this clear video of this happening, because all I have seen is an incredibly blurry and pixelated over zoomed image thats about as clear as an 80's video game.

I think Abletts a shue in for the brownlow. All his competition is becoming ineligible. I fully agree with you Chuznut with Fyfe.

I think the bookies would've been rejoicing. They stand to lose a lot of money if Ablett comes in. They make more money when a roughie comes in, rather than the favourite.

You could argue though that maybe it would've been a good thing for AFL headquarters if Ablett had been suspended - Ablett is such a short priced favourite that surely there wouldn't be a lot of people betting on the Brownlow at the moment. If he were suspended, it would open up the betting market significantly, and I'm assuming that AFL would get a cut of the money that is made through betting? Also, if he were suspended, but still considered a sure thing of winning the count, I'm sure there would be a lot of people out there with a sense of Schadenfreude who would want to watch the Brownlow count just to see how Ablett handles himself when he wins the count, and yet still has to be the person who hands the Brownlow to the person who got less votes than him. On a side note (and to bring up an old debate), as someone who placed a bet on Nat Fyfe at the start of the year, I feel pretty hard done by that Fyfe got done for an accidental head clash (and therefore I lost my money), whereas Ablett didn't get anything for what appears to be a deliberate elbow to the face. I understand that technically, what Fyfe did was against the rules, but who can honestly say that they think that what Fyfe did was worse than what Ablett did?

I wasnt aiming at you Macca, more the comment made in the initial article "Johnson was suspended for a week following a head-butt on Ryan Crowley, which would probably not have been even looked at had it not been for Crowley’s overacting."

Can you imagin to outcry from the bookies if Ablett had of been made ineligible.

Axle - According to Joel Bowden once the impact was found not to be to the head (thanks to Pickens testimony) the level of force required to be reportable goes up dramatically and therefore Ablett didn't meet the force threshold and was let off- if however he had of hit him in the head the force apparently would of been sufficient to get him suspended - the fact Ablett threw the lebow indiscriminatly with no knowledge of where it would land is apparently irrelevant. So it seems players now have a choice, you can hit someone as hard as you like in say the kidneys or just softly on the chin, or close your eyes (or have your jumper pulled over their heads like Robinson did the other week) and swing and take your luck

So since he got elbowed in the chest paul ,dose that mean a player can punch someone in the chest also? Dont get me wrong i dont think there was anything in it, but whats the difference between a punch and an elbow?