Is this fake news?

Hawkins has been discriminated against by the AFL on several occasions now. Hawkins should be looking at putting a discrimination case together.

How does Ed cop a fine and Hawkins gets a week? BS

Of course they are

@#&$ you AFL..

I knew this was coming. 

Laughable...fn laughable

 

I'd call this horsesh1t, but that would be unfair to horsesh1t. Can Hawkins appeal against the Curnow decisions? It seems the AFL have been determined to set  a precedent by going one way with Hawkins and the other with the Curnows, so that they can claim precedent for going any which way they like in future. Makes more sense than trying to find consistency in their decision-making ...

It does make me think the Curnows are free to gang-tackle their choice of umpires at the opening bounce if they wish. And for the conspiracy theorists, why exactly did Mike Fitzpatrick (who played for which club?) choose this week to whack Essendon about the drug issue?

21 minutes ago, Chook said:

We thought the precedent was set last week. Turns out we were wrong.

Legally, you are correct. It was established last week and this week? Blown to smithereens due to vested interest.

interesting how the afl reduce the mrp to 1 single person (+ 1 afl oversighter) in order to get consistency in judgement and punishment then have a tribunal with an advocate and a jury of three, all of which changed from one week to the next on a hearing of virtually the same unusual charge. consistency, not

for the record i don't think any of the 4 umpire handling charges were really severe enough to warrant a suspension (fine, yes)
 

but the afl process can't set the bar one week and then raise it the next without criticism

3 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

I'd call this horsesh1t, but that would be unfair to horsesh1t. Can Hawkins appeal against the Curnow decisions? It seems the AFL have been determined to set  a precedent by going one way with Hawkins and the other with the Curnows, so that they can claim precedent for going any which way they like in future. Makes more sense than trying to find consistency in their decision-making ...

It does make me think the Curnows are free to gang-tackle their choice of umpires at the opening bounce if they wish. And for the conspiracy theorists, why exactly did Mike Fitzpatrick (who played for which club?) choose this week to whack Essendon about the drug issue?

It just seems like Curnow's explanation was a prepared lie. Even if it were truthful, it still violates the rules - badly and openly. Disband the Tribunal, its counsel, its purpose for another before the coming round starts because the umpiring/Tribunal system and MRO are dysfunctional from their own doing and precedent is outside of their interests.

What a completely farcical situation .. just what on earth is going on ffs

complete and utter shambles from top to bottom . What are Geelong supposed to think ? What is anybody supposed to think . Completely idiotic . The AFL are proven now to have one rule for one and another for others ! 

Either you can touch an umpire or not . It’s black or white . The adjudication in this organization has completely lost the plot!

End of rant ! And what’s left of my sanity 

Youre a joke Christian... actually...

 

Good luck Curnow’s 

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

interesting how the afl reduce the mrp to 1 single person (+ 1 afl oversighter) in order to get consistency in judgement and punishment then have a tribunal with an advocate and a jury of three, all of which changed from one week to the next on a hearing of virtually the same unusual charge. consistency, not

 

this.  Have a fixed tribunal panel of people prepared to do the job all year, plus a couple of reserves in case of illness etc.    

27 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It's already well established that the AFL run a corrupt competition.

Not in the sense of brown paper bags (although we know that has happened at clubs). Not in the sense of Gil calling in Mick Gatto to make sure Ablett gets to Geelong.

More in the sense of damaged, tarnished, warped. Corroded. And that doesn't bother the AFL one little bit.

The AFL runs a damaged and warped competition.

Fantastic summation.  Consistent inconsistency.  

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Youre a joke Christian... actually...

 

Not really .... jokes are humorous.  This Magpie is not.   (And, actually, this was not Christian's doing for a change. It is the tribunal)

2 hours ago, rjay said:

The only common sense rule in the case is 'you just can't do it'...

I've been involved in games where umpires have been assaulted at lower levels (more than one) 'DubDee' and it's just not on.

There are no shades of grey, you touch an umpire and you're gone.

DRawing a connection between incidental,  almost friendly contact and assault is far from common sense

Sorry I don't see what the fuss is about here.  I thought the contact from the Carlton guys and May was pretty incidental from the start.  I recon you would find heaps of similar footage which no one was rubbed out for last year.  I'm in the Greg Williams, Gerard Wheatley camp on this one - the umpires shouldn't get closer than they need to be most of the time.  Players should exercise a duty of care to avoid umpires in general play and certainly shouldn't contact the umpires in an agressive manner, but from what I recall of the respective incidents, I don't think either of the Carlton guys were in any way agressive actions at the time.  Intimidating body language also contributes and I think is where Hawkins came unstuck, where he was agressive in his demeanor towards the umpire as well as the actual swift swiping away of the hand Vs the gentle push away from Crunow.  Crunow also practically had his back to him Vs Hawkins who was matching the upires confrontational stance front on.  In some ways I think it is actually possible that the umpire in the Hawkins case contributed by engauging in a dispute with Hawkins - pay the free kick, if he doesn't acept it and advances towards the umpire, give him a warning of what he's doing and pay 50m.

Petition to call this weekend's match day thread "Hello Curnows"...

4 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Sorry I don't see what the fuss is about here.  I thought the contact from the Carlton guys and May was pretty incidental from the start.  I recon you would find heaps of similar footage which no one was rubbed out for last year.  I'm in the Greg Williams, Gerard Wheatley camp on this one - the umpires shouldn't get closer than they need to be most of the time.  Players should exercise a duty of care to avoid umpires in general play and certainly shouldn't contact the umpires in an agressive manner, but from what I recall of the respective incidents, I don't think either of the Carlton guys were in any way agressive actions at the time.  Intimidating body language also contributes and I think is where Hawkins came unstuck, where he was agressive in his demeanor towards the umpire as well as the actual swift swiping away of the hand Vs the gentle push away from Crunow.  Crunow also practically had his back to him Vs Hawkins who was matching the upires confrontational stance front on.  In some ways I think it is actually possible that the umpire in the Hawkins case contributed by engauging in a dispute with Hawkins - pay the free kick, if he doesn't acept it and advances towards the umpire, give him a warning of what he's doing and pay 50m.

the "fuss",rgb, stems mainly from the inconsistency from week to week

The Charlie decision is correct but the Ed one is ridiculous.

Good decisions. Incidental, non threatening contact should not result in players missing weeks. 

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the "fuss",rgb, stems mainly from the inconsistency from week to week

Not sure I see it actually being that inconsistent.  That said, I only clearly remember the May and one of the two Curnrow incidents.

On a similar note, I actually think Nick Nat deserved every bit of the 1 week ban he got though on the basis of consitancy of duty of care during tackling.  The way Nick Nat has monstered several players now just falling with all his weight into their back during his crude tackles is no different in principle to a sling tackle in my veiw.

4 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Not sure I see it actually being that inconsistent.  That said, I only clearly remember the May and one of the two Curnrow incidents.

 

you didn't see the hawkin's one which started this all off and set a precedent?

Edited May 15, 20186 yr by daisycutter

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

Pro wrestling these days has more credebilty than the AFL. They admit their fakery is scripted. 

and ziebell got his suspension thrown out

must remember that jury make-up and request it next time a demon appeals

Edited May 15, 20186 yr by daisycutter

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you didn't see the hawkin's one which started this all off and set a precedent?

Lol, yeah that too.

I did see it and remember it fairly well.

Failure of self to author a logical post duly noted.

Edited May 15, 20186 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

Monumental fail by the AFL. The intent was not there? So bloody what. The umpire is sacrosanct or he or she is not. Simple yes or no.

Two consequential precedents arise:

Every player who infringes will only have to say "No intent - I didn't mean it your honour" to be cleared of all charges.

What happens if a player pushes a female umpire in the chest? No intent but what about consent in this metoo age?

As CEO another McLachlan created fiasco, even if he wasn't directly involved.

Whately has said Hocking has no choice for the good of the game at all levels but to appeal.