I have a sneaking suspicion the AFL will appeal this decision. 

Why didn't the umpires report May and the Curnows on the spot? They do know the rules of the game they're officiating?

19.2  REPORTABLE OFFENCES
  19.2.2  Specific Offences
    (b)  intentionally making contact with, or striking, an Umpire;
    (c)  attempting to make contact with, or strike, an Umpire;
    (d)  carelessly making contact with an Umpire;

 

I only saw the few seconds of replay showing the contact. Were free kicks paid against May/Curnows?

15.6  FREE KICKS – RELATING TO UMPIRES
  15.6.1  A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player or Official who:
    (c)  intentionally or carelessly makes contact with an Umpire;

Good week for the AFL. A tribunal that is inconsistent. The rules being written by the Hawthorn coach. (How Gil allowed that memo to go out after the meeting being exposed is incomprehensible. At least consult the other coaches first and pretend there was consensus.) 

1 hour ago, rjay said:

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.

I reckon if there’s no word by lunchtime then that’s it. Nothing further folks.

12 hours ago, willmoy said:

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" 

If they have been told, then the message didn't get through to the two in the Curnow cases.  The guy that Ed gently puts his arm out to needlessly got within 200 to 300mm of his face.  There is almost no force in the action which was used, Ed is walking away as he is extending his arm out, the umpire hardly moves and his fingers hardly bend at the end of the action.  The Charlie one is similar, the umpire is almost getting in on the melee action, he might as well have been pulling the players apart he was that close.

Fine with protecting the safety of umpires, but there still needs to be a reasonable line and the players still have a right to carefully protect their personal space, which I recon in the heat of the moment was more of a instinctive reflex action rather than an intentional act.

Completely with you regards the Clarkson/Gill meeting though.  That's a shocking look for the integrity game.  The media and should be getting into Clarkson and the AFL over that big time.  Every other AFL club should be questioning it and writing to the AFL behind the scenes.  I actually think it could backfire on Clarkson in the long run, in so far as that the AFL will probably now need to overcompensate in the way they umpire the dorks, by paying them less free kicks, so as not to create an impression of favoritisim.  The somewhat interesting (also very dumb) thing about this is why they met at a public café?  That in it's self does lead you to question how much of this stuff normally goes on behind closed doors.  Reminds me of the Max tax last year, when overnight the umpires started paying a completely different interpretation of the ruck rules against Max Gawn last year Vs St Kilda based on opposition complaints.

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Why didn't the umpires report May and the Curnows on the spot? They do know the rules of the game they're officiating?

19.2  REPORTABLE OFFENCES
  19.2.2  Specific Offences
    (b)  intentionally making contact with, or striking, an Umpire;
    (c)  attempting to make contact with, or strike, an Umpire;
    (d)  carelessly making contact with an Umpire;

 

I only saw the few seconds of replay showing the contact. Were free kicks paid against May/Curnows?

15.6  FREE KICKS – RELATING TO UMPIRES
  15.6.1  A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player or Official who:
    (c)  intentionally or carelessly makes contact with an Umpire;

Like Tom Hawkins’ partner tweeted. WTF???

The umpires were very generous and favourable toward the brothers at the hearing. The umpire in the Ed case stated he didn’t realise at the time he was touched by Ed. 

Again WTF????

12 hours ago, rjay said:

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.

I respect your opinion rjay.  just don't agree with it.

the umpires in these cases had the opportunity to speak if they felt there was any issue at all. one said they couldn't remember it and the other said they weren't bothered by it (more memory), you would think they would consider the lower level comps when making these remarks. or if they felt Ed was being arrogant or demostrotive they could mention this also.

1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

I have a sneaking suspicion the AFL will appeal this decision. 

I don't think they will.

1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

I have a sneaking suspicion the AFL will appeal this decision. 

On SEN this morning, Gerard Whately said he thinks they should.

10 hours ago, McQueen said:

Why is something so simple reffered to the tribunal anyway!

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

You're missing the 'fix'

It was deliberately pushed to the tribunal where it could be massaged.

Stands out like dog's ....

1 hour ago, rjay said:

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.

What will happen ??

SFA 

12 hours ago, rjay said:

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.

 

 

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.

As for the stuff regarding lower levels, by the time kids get physically big enough to be of concern to an umpire, they have enough of a brain that they either make reasonable interpretations about where the line is or they didn't have a brain in the first place, don't care and it wouldn't have mattered what message the AFL sent anyway.  Had a mate who was king hit umpiring amerture soccer on two seperate occations and I just can't fathom that the guys that did that ever thought it was just a gentle push like they'd seen on TV.  Personally,  I think that in the extreme cases of violence at the junior and lower levels the threat of suspension probably doesn't carry much weight anyway, compared to being charged with criminal assault.  Even then, I think there are underlying social/mental health issues that do as much to prompt that kind of behavior rather than what is role modeled at the top level.  At the end of the day, the AFL needs to make sensible decisions based on it's own needs and whilst the effect on junior leagues is a consideration, it shouldn't become the overruling factor.

15 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

 

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/afl-weighs-up-appeal-on-curnow-verdicts

If I were Hawkins....Id be pi55ed off.

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

If they have been told, then the message didn't get through to the two in the Curnow cases.  The guy that Ed gently puts his arm out to needlessly got within 200 to 300mm of his face.  There is almost no force in the action which was used, Ed is walking away as he is extending his arm out, the umpire hardly moves and his fingers hardly bend at the end of the action.  The Charlie one is similar, the umpire is almost getting in on the melee action, he might as well have been pulling the players apart he was that close.

Fine with protecting the safety of umpires, but there still needs to be a reasonable line and the players still have a right to carefully protect their personal space, which I recon in the heat of the moment was more of a instinctive reflex action rather than an intentional act.

Completely with you regards the Clarkson/Gill meeting though.  That's a shocking look for the integrity game.  The media and should be getting into Clarkson and the AFL over that big time.  Every other AFL club should be questioning it and writing to the AFL behind the scenes.  I actually think it could backfire on Clarkson in the long run, in so far as that the AFL will probably now need to overcompensate in the way they umpire the dorks, by paying them less free kicks, so as not to create an impression of favoritisim.  The somewhat interesting (also very dumb) thing about this is why they met at a public café?  That in it's self does lead you to question how much of this stuff normally goes on behind closed doors.  Reminds me of the Max tax last year, when overnight the umpires started paying a completely different interpretation of the ruck rules against Max Gawn last year Vs St Kilda based on opposition complaints.

Not averse to what you say other than the MFC in me says if it had of been one of our blokes and also wait until after this game finishes.........

Deadline for the AFL to appeal in 5 mins.

 

wow... interesting dynamics

AFL officially appealing both Curnows' decision. 

Just now, Die Hard Demon said:

AFL officially appealing both Curnows' decision. 

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

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

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

Hmm possibly .. surely at least Ed's case has to be over-turned and given a week. The disgruntled coaches & media have made plenty of waves calling out the inconsistencies.. Would've thought the AFL would need to make a statement now that they've acknowledged they're not happy with the findings. 

11 minutes ago, Demonland said:

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

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

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 !