Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Round 08 vs Gold Coast



davejemmolly

The Curnow Brothers at the Tribunal

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

No inconsistentcy for mind.  The respective incidents are significantly differentiated by the levels of force and agressivness in the respective actions Tom Hawkins Vs the rest.  Like it or not, there will always be a grey zone.  Can not simply be any contact between an umire and player and the player gets suspended.  As I said in my original post, if you go back over gamr footage of the past few weeks even, I think heaps of times contact was made between umpires and players.  Prior to the Hawkins verdict many people were evendors questioning if it was a suspendable offence.  What Hawkins case represents is the bottom threshold  (hence he only got 1 week), but stuff less than that is not.  The players didn't get off completely, they still had a case to answer and got fined what for most people would be equivalent to something in the order of $250 - $500.  Don't know about you, but I don't like parting with that sort of cash for no return.

But that’s not the issue. 

Hawkins pleaded guilty to intentionally making contact with an umpire. The Curnows were both charged with the same offence.

Both then argued it wasn’t intentional, just merely careless. As you note, careless contact with unpires happens all the time (eg running through one because you’re not paying enough attention). 

The issue here is that there is no reasonable way to characterise what either Curnow did as anything other than intentional. Once it is accepted that both intentionally made contact with an umpire, both should be suspended for a week as the general principle ought to be that players should not intentionally make contact of any sort with an umpire.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too much logic @titan_uranus

Please desist

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will depend on counsel (presumably at top guy this time) and the jury they conjure up (maybe the hawkin's jury - lol)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MRO --> Tribunal --> AFL appeal

feels a bit like the AFL appealing against themselves.  lets face it, they control the other two unofficially.

what a farce!   you would have to assume one of them at least will be overturned, otherwise what the point!?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I never!  AFL to appeal!

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-afl-confirms-it-will-appeal-tribunal-decisions-for-carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow/news-story/7a480a865412ed41f3ee1975ab318781

I eat humble pie for my earlier commentary of possible behind the scene machinations by the AFL! 

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Well, I never!  https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-afl-confirms-it-will-appeal-tribunal-decisions-for-carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow/news-story/7a480a865412ed41f3ee1975ab318781

I eat humble pie for my earlier commentary of possible behind the scene machinations by the AFL! 

don't eat humble pie yet, lucy........it could still be just a sop to quieten the hordes of dissenters and nothing will change

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

???  Who was it Hocking used to play for ? ????

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Well, I never!  https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-afl-confirms-it-will-appeal-tribunal-decisions-for-carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow/news-story/7a480a865412ed41f3ee1975ab318781

I eat humble pie for my earlier commentary of possible behind the scene machinations by the AFL! 

Wow, really....theres been a lot in the media this morning.

On a side note, im glad Carlton have the Curnows....they are pretty average footballers really. Helps keep them where they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Bolton should have gone for a coffee with Gil. 

maybe he was booked up with a scott

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

don't eat humble pie yet, lucy........it could still be just a sop to quieten the hordes of dissenters and nothing will change

Thank you.

The acid test might be if the AFL appoint last weeks Tribunal members to hear the Appeal...at least there would be consistent minds reviewing

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

maybe he was booked up with a scott

You're on fire DC ???

Maybe stock up on the PrepH ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairdinkum the AFL is just like a dog chasing its own tail

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DeeZee said:

Fairdinkum the AFL is just like a dog chasing its own tail

Makes a change from licking its own....??

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Why the AFL use a different tribunal each time is confusing? Surely you would you the same people for the entirety of the year to ensure the outcomes are consistent?

Way to sensible Dom...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

If they AFL is trying to stamp this out and be consistent, surely Steven May should be appealed too?  I know his was a little different, but it took place as he was arguing with the umpire directly....

I think the AFL needed to do this and sort it out given that Hawkins got a week (but he pleaded guilty... and I don't think attempted to plea for careless) for essentially the same as Ed.

Interesting !

They had to appeal yesterday for the May one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Maybe so but I think a thread title update to reflect the status is warranted just so we can up the angst.

Done. Thread title change incoming tomorrow afternoon. Accepting entertaining entries. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost ? like they just make it all up as they go.....tra-la-lala-la ?

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

If they AFL is trying to stamp this out and be consistent, surely Steven May should be appealed too?  I know his was a little different, but it took place as he was arguing with the umpire directly....

I think the AFL needed to do this and sort it out given that Hawkins got a week (but he pleaded guilty... and I don't think attempted to plea for careless) for essentially the same as Ed.

Interesting !

If correct I think you've hit the nail on the head there Ouch.

You have to love the AFL when it enters the judicial world .... This could detract from the build up to the big China game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could Hawkins get "time already served" for his next incident? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Franky_31 said:

Could Hawkins get "time already served" for his next incident? 

bit hard when you pleaded guilty in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

???  Who was it Hocking used to play for ? ????

8

 

47 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

???  Who was it Hocking used to play for ? ????

Geelong

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Social Media



    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×