The world is stuffed. The Curnows get off when another player gets screwed for the same offence. The thugs who assault paramedics get off, the power companies and banks get away with blue murder. Cricketers who make an error of judgement get crucified. Oil companies and car parks price gouge. Think I’ll become a hermit.

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

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

I agree with whateley

 

49 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Sorry I don't see what the fuss is about here.

The fuss to me apart from the inconsistency is the message it sends.

E. Curnow wasn't incidental contact, he looked at and put his hand on the umpires chest and pushed him.

The AFL are supposed to be custodians of the game but the message this sends to the lower levels is not good.

I've seen enough to know that players down the line don't have a filter and what was deemed minor in this case will be amplified and some poor umpire will get pushed around somewhere this weekend.

...and unless the AFL appeal they will be at fault.

 

 

For a start for some people to suggest that the Umpires have NOT been told to keep their safe respective distance from melees, uncontrollable stoppages etc is ridiculous. That said these Carlton players pushed the Umpires. This year Hawkins gets a week, the following week two Carlton Blokes come up. They get off. Meanwhile Bolton, a mate of Hawthorn's Coach has probably been asked to support his mate from Hawthorn, (who probably put the word in, that got him the job there in the first place), in the not miniscule matter of Alastair talking covertly to Gil to stop the interference P/Fav Hawks...not just the rest of us, thanks for that.

So is this all just a big fat red Herring to take away from the issue that should worry every footy lover.............interesting to see who we get to adjudicate our game and how they feel about their sanctity and right of "'no fear no favour" 

59 minutes ago, DubDee said:

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

It wasn't friendly contact it was the contact of an arrogant dh, the body language was I'm better than you stop bothering me.

Were as it should be respect for the position, even if you don't like the umpire. Bad luck, he's the man in charge.

It goes down the line 'Dub' and unfortunately manifests itself in much more serious situations but you've obviously not played or coached serious football at the lower level.

I can tell you now that umpire friends of mine are furious.

59 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

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

It’s set a new benchmark that the tribunal will never be able to adjudicate differently again.

Anyone with a similar action has a case study to reference for years to come.

I can understand May not being sanctioned as he has a plane to catch with a big game in Shanghai, but what is the point of letting the Curnow brothers play in a game they will lose anyway. Mind boggling!! 

32 minutes ago, McQueen said:

It’s set a new benchmark that the tribunal will never be able to adjudicate differently again.

Anyone with a similar action has a case study to reference for years to come.

we thought that after the hawkins benchmark

.........but then the afl just rolled in a completely new jury

57 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

The world is stuffed. The Curnows get off when another player gets screwed for the same offence. The thugs who assault paramedics get off, the power companies and banks get away with blue murder. Cricketers who make an error of judgement get crucified. Oil companies and car parks price gouge. Think I’ll become a hermit.

At least you barrack for the right team Chook if you want to be a hermit. You’d have had the whole top deck to yourself last weekend if you’d gone to the footy.

51 minutes ago, McQueen said:

It’s set a new benchmark that the tribunal will never be able to adjudicate differently again.

Anyone with a similar action has a case study to reference for years to come.

Yeah nah. You're still running on a logical algorithm that two identical incidents will be treated in the same manner by the tribunal. You clearly haven't been paying attention for the last few years. ?

Edited May 15, 20186 yr by grazman

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

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

The only co fidence I have is he's an ex Cat. Not that that would ever be a factor?

26 minutes ago, grazman said:

Yeah nah. You're still running on a logical algorithm that two identical incidents will be treated in the same manner by the tribunal. You clearly haven't been paying attention for the last few years. ?

I knew that as I was typing the post but I all seriousness, if this isn’t appealed the AFL have really left themselves open.

42 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

we thought that after the hawkins benchmark

.........but then the afl just rolled in a completely new jury

I considered Hawkins to be worse as he was looking at the Ump but Ed Curnow was clearly deliberate and the decision made by the tribunal has proven that the new system is as flawed as ever.

11 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

I have conflicting emotions. If you dont draw a line for umpires  then it will get nasty.

Then again sometimes I think in the off season we should be allowed to hunt them.

I think this is almost the funniest thing I've ever read on Demonland.

Its all ok

Now good to just run back into an ump " had no intention " .........

My god...howdumb.do either this AFL think folk are....or how much they are.

Beyond farce....beyond Disney...

lol what a mickey mouse operation.

Won’t change the result.

17 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Its all ok

Now good to just run back into an ump " had no intention " .........

My god...howdumb.do either this AFL think folk are....or how much they are.

Beyond farce....beyond Disney...

So perhaps they should revert back to the old days when they wouldn't [censored] fart around telling everyone they're running straight back after they bounce/throw up the ball. It means nothing because obviously if there was any contact it would be accidental.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

we thought that after the hawkins benchmark

.........but then the afl just rolled in a completely new jury

And apparently a less senior prosecutor.

The AFL has no standards

Why is something so simple reffered to the tribunal anyway!

Michael Christian must feel like biggest toothless tiger at AFL house. 

20 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The AFL has no standards

Most of the time, other times they have double.

I haven't seen either incident but is it possible that the umpires will be suspended for putting an illegal block against each Curnow off the ball?

Seen it all now AFL disgrace.

How can you be seen as fair finkum with outcomes like this.

Don't argues on umpires are fair game now. PATHETIC. AFL.

 

can't believe either of them got off. also, jack ziebell not getting done for dropping his knees was nuts too. extremely concerning precedents.

 

A couple of things you can guarantee will happen this morning.

The first is the AFL will wash it's hands by saying the tribunal is an independent body....sure.

The next is they will gauge the public reaction on social media & talk back radio...so far it's not very positive & I can't see the independence thing fooling anyone.

It's what happens from then that I'm not so sure about...will they appeal the decision?

They should.

If they do the independent body will be told to at least give E Curnow a week to appease the fans.