Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Peter Jackson Interview



davejemmolly

The Curnow Brothers at the Tribunal

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

bit hard when you pleaded guilty in the first place

One could argue that he was coerced.

This whole fiasco is becoming absolutely farcical. Next thing you know, players' will get done for sneezing within the vicinity of umpires.

Edited by Demon Disciple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to challenge this Appeal!?

fk it, lets get ASADA involved. they should clean this mess up  ? 

Share this post


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

One could argue that he was coerced.

Players (just like an accused in the ‘real world’) are often offered plea deals. It’s not coercion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

On AFL360, said Hawkins was met by AFL reps just before his hearing and told to plead guilty and accept one week or fight it and get a two week punishment...

Exactly, so having fought the charges, if these 2 now go they should be given 2 weeks.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

One could argue that he was coerced.

This whole fiasco is becoming absolutely farcical. Next thing you know, players' will get done for sneezing within the vicinity of umpires.

True he was coerced, but he's an adult. i sorta agree with you but it becomes more complex when your defence is one of coercion and then of innocence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of hoping the appeals board hands down the death penalty.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

I'm sort of hoping the appeals board hands down the death penalty.

It would be a good deterrent to any player who was contemplating touching up an umpire in the future.

Edited by Ethan Tremblay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s ultimately at play here is the credibility of Hockings decision to appoint a single MRO to officiate all incidents in an effort to find consistency. What’s happened is a continuation of the same flaws producing the same confusion.

The next thing to happen here is anyone’s guess but Hockings arrival and seemingly astute and timely decisions are right on the line here.

The appeal fails and so does Hocking.

Big time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jibroni said:

Right decision but lets move on. If we play in 4th gear we should easily beat thus mob.

Just wonder if the Curnows will enjoy a little bump from Viney this weekend early in the game - and perhaps Pedo if he is playing - sure would make for an interesting match. Petracca could give a bit of lip, too.

Fire them up, so that they do not know from whence and when the trouble might come.

Carlton need to know that a majority of observers of this week's Tribunal farce cannot - and will not - tolerate AFL favouritism, and the first way to prove that is to express sentiment directly back to the AFL through messages via the guilty parties, who sway AFL rules and regulations at will with the post-match co-operation of the AFL itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, McQueen said:

What’s ultimately at play here is the credibility of Hockings decision to appoint a single MRO to officiate all incidents in an effort to find consistency. What’s happened is a continuation of the same flaws producing the same confusion.

The next thing to happen here is anyone’s guess but Hockings arrival and seemingly astute and timely decisions are right on the line here.

The appeal fails and so does Hocking.

Big time.

The MRO didn't adjudicate the case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they must get a week now, it’s clearly what the AFL want touch an umpire you go for a week, they will look even more foolish if the same outcome comes about 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Demonland said:

The pessimist inside me still thinks this is all just a charade to pacify the unhappy masses.

The realist in me agrees

3 hours ago, Die Hard Demon said:

AFL officially appealing both Curnows' decision. 

No doubt Gil spin and hype.  Maybe he asked Clarko what to do over coffee?

2 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

On AFL360, said Hawkins was met by AFL reps just before his hearing and told to plead guilty and accept one week or fight it and get a two week punishment...

Who?   Integrity Commissioners?? ?????????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, brendan said:

Well they must get a week now, it’s clearly what the AFL want touch an umpire you go for a week, they will look even more foolish if the same outcome comes about 

I see it a different way. Tin Foil hat time. I think the AFL know that the wider community is angry about the outcome and the inconsistency and the appeal is just for show and they will be satisfied with the same outcome and if the fans are still unhappy after then they will just say "we agree. we tried".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know who is on the 'appeals board'?

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

 

Bit like now you cant run towards a player with the filght of the ball to spoil even if you dont take eyes off the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a positive response to a thoroughly bizarre situation.  

How can the AFL and their own tribunal be on such different pages?

I think the May ruling was right, it's also (remotely) possible that Charlie should escape with a fine, but no way Ed gets off for that.

The tribunal has set a stupid precedent by letting all three off as footage of these infractions will be used for all future contact with umpire hearings.  There are three different types of contact being made with an umpire - the tribunal has now made three different exceptions to the rule. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, loges said:

The MRO didn't adjudicate the case.

I know that but he called it intentional and referred it to the tribunal. My point is that the system is still broken after Hockings changes at a match review level.

I said it earlier, I he MRO is looking like a toothless tiger and Hocking isn’t liking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Demonland said:

................................................

The AFL has lodge an appeal against the Curnow brothers after an early morning meeting between Gillon McLachlan and Simon Goodwin.

Since when have the Dees been "One of the Big Clubs that Rule the AFL"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, sue said:

Anyone know who is on the 'appeals board'?

Walls , Jones and Silvagni

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

Since when have the Dees been "One of the Big Clubs that Rule the AFL"?

Since Titus drank one too many

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFL had to appeal this disastrous precedent. There should a simple rule - do not intentionally or recklessly make contact with an umpire.

Extending a hand or arm when not in play like Hawkins, Curnow I and Curnow II did is an obvious intentional or reckless act. Simple rule - do not extend any body parts near an umpire. The force of the contact is not a consideration.

May could also be classified as reckless but, as he was only demonstrating his action and not extending an arm or hand, it could, reluctantly, be classified as accidental contact and attract a lesser penalty.

Accidental should be narrowly defined as an action that would not normally be expected to make contact with an umpire eg. bending over or where the umpire was not in the field of vision and the player was not aware (note that Curnow might have been looking at Merrett but the umpire was in field of vision).

Extending an arm towards an umpire in the field of vision is not accidental. The application of the rule should be a strict liability.

  • Like 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, McQueen said:

What’s ultimately at play here is the credibility of Hockings decision to appoint a single MRO to officiate all incidents in an effort to find consistency. What’s happened is a continuation of the same flaws producing the same confusion.

The next thing to happen here is anyone’s guess but Hockings arrival and seemingly astute and timely decisions are right on the line here.

The appeal fails and so does Hocking.

Big time.

It's kinda funny in a way.

If they ..the AwfuL had sat down and concocted a worse case scenario of a situation involving umpires being "touched" ..then even this is beyond fiction.

They're now damned either way.

Well done AFL... scholarly ;)

Edited by beelzebub
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were either of these players asked if they actually said the word "sorry" when they knowingly pushed (touched)the umpires? Plus the FACT that there is at the moment a degree of implication on the heads of these two Umpires as well, as far as i'm concerned, by their statements of non awareness of being manhandled......hmmm 

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

×