Did anyone notice that Charlie Spargo ran straight into the umpire after receiving a free kick in front of goal (3rd Quarter, about 2:45 mins to go)? He was exiting the congestion and clocked him fairly vigorously...I know he didn't mean it, but it was a lot more substantial than Hawkins, May and the Curnow Bros...

3 minutes ago, Buffalo said:

Did anyone notice that Charlie Spargo ran straight into the umpire after receiving a free kick in front of goal (3rd Quarter, about 2:45 mins to go)? He was exiting the congestion and clocked him fairly vigorously...I know he didn't mean it, but it was a lot more substantial than Hawkins, May and the Curnow Bros...

That happens all the time, some get fined some don’t, as long as he didn’t touch the umpire on purpose then all is good 

4 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...

Interesting that the result is known before evidence is given, or cases presented and then negotiated outcomes are guaranteed in the same circumstances. Yep, Independent Tribunal my ars-e.

14 minutes ago, Buffalo said:

Did anyone notice that Charlie Spargo ran straight into the umpire after receiving a free kick in front of goal (3rd Quarter, about 2:45 mins to go)? He was exiting the congestion and clocked him fairly vigorously...I know he didn't mean it, but it was a lot more substantial than Hawkins, May and the Curnow Bros...

ssshhh!!!!!

4 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

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

 

4 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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

And would make ripper pre - match or half time entertainment. No doubt the Aus Kickers would love it. Yes, they'd have to run around the makeshift guillotine (there's a sponsorship opportunity in itself) but it's a visual deterrent they won't forget in a hurry.

I still can't get over Clarkson scoring a private meeting with Gil.

Any fair dinkum CEO would have said, if you have something to say, say it through the coaches assoc. I can't allow even the appearance of doing special favours for anyone.

Last good thing Gil did for the game was slashing the price of chips. I bet they've gone back up to what they were.

5 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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.

 

10 hours 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;

Contact, intentonal contact, careless contact I think are somewhat irrelevant once the matter gets to the tribunal.

Tight one, as Mazer points out, the rules state it was  reported/refered to the tribunal.  Unless it states somewhere that any intentional or careless contact is a manditory 1 week suspention, then I think the tribunal can reasonably use it's discretion to apply a suitable penalty.  Both Curnows incidents were significantly less forcefull and less agressive than Hawkins and thus I feel a reduced level of penalty is appropriate.  Not 'victim blaming' (because essentially no harm actually happened), but I think the AFL and the umpires need to be reasonable and share some of the fault in these incidents, because the umpires are really too close to the incidents in question.  I actually think the players acted quite reasonably in the circumstances and really shouldn't be penalised further beyond what they actually have been.

Back closer to your original point, I still think you would find multiple cases of players having similar mild intentional contact with umpires to the Curnows on multiple previous occurrences in recient history that have been either just fines or not even been referred/reported.  Huge storm in a tea cup because it happened the week after Tom Hawkins.  It wouldn't suprise me if Carlton now capitulate and acept a mild 1 week ban for fear of being banned for further weeks. Typical AFL trial by media/public opinion type stuff.

Just now, Mazer Rackham said:

I still can't get over Clarkson scoring a private meeting with Gil.  Any fair dinkum  CEO would have said, if you have something to say, say it through the coaches assoc. I can't allow even the appearance of doing special favours for anyone.

Last good thing Gil did for the game was slashing the price of chips. I bet they've gone back up to what they were.

Asked/Answered

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

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

And never forget, a fish rots from the head. And who is the head?? Clarko’s Coffee buddy. 

2 hours ago, willmoy said:

 

Walls , Jones and Silvagni

Also Fitzpatrick, McClure and for independence from another state: Ken Hunter and Busustow

4 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

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

That made me laugh......classic.

...or perhaps it could be referred to Den Haige in the Netherlands...

Edited May 16, 20186 yr by Wadda We Sing

3 hours ago, leave it to deever 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.

but sometimes you can though

5 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

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

No need for such extreme measures. Better to cut off the offending hand. Make sure it never touches an umpire again.

Edited May 16, 20186 yr by america de cali

4 hours ago, willmoy said:

 

Walls , Jones and Silvagni

Ya kidding me?

Danger turns up the heat on the inconsistency:  Farcical!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/danger-slams-tribunals-farcical-ump-ruling

I hope that behind the scenes, the umpires association also turned up the heat to ensure the message is loud and clear to football at all levels that you don't deliberately touch an umpire.

6 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

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

Lol... later to be commuted to life at Carltoon.

23 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Danger turns up the heat on the inconsistency:  Farcical!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/danger-slams-tribunals-farcical-ump-ruling

I hope that behind the scenes, the umpires association also turned up the heat to ensure the message is loud and clear to football at all levels that you don't deliberately touch an umpire.

Gil must hate Paddy

I'm warming to him......Dfield

Are their heavier penalties in the rules for touching down umpires in contrast to touching up..............

22 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

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.

Fair call that, if I do say so myself.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/no-more-warnings-on-umpires-exit-path

 

39 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Are their heavier penalties in the rules for touching down umpires in contrast to touching up..............

Heavier breathing maybe

Sick of hearing about these two duds, just ban them and get on with it.

Hope its stuffed their preparation if they do play.  Melbourne by 112.

 

Edited May 16, 20186 yr by Petraccattack

6 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

 

Contact, intentonal contact, careless contact I think are somewhat irrelevant once the matter gets to the tribunal.

Tight one, as Mazer points out, the rules state it was  reported/refered to the tribunal.  Unless it states somewhere that any intentional or careless contact is a manditory 1 week suspention, then I think the tribunal can reasonably use it's discretion to apply a suitable penalty.  Both Curnows incidents were significantly less forcefull and less agressive than Hawkins and thus I feel a reduced level of penalty is appropriate.  Not 'victim blaming' (because essentially no harm actually happened), but I think the AFL and the umpires need to be reasonable and share some of the fault in these incidents, because the umpires are really too close to the incidents in question.  I actually think the players acted quite reasonably in the circumstances and really shouldn't be penalised further beyond what they actually have been.

Back closer to your original point, I still think you would find multiple cases of players having similar mild intentional contact with umpires to the Curnows on multiple previous occurrences in recient history that have been either just fines or not even been referred/reported.  Huge storm in a tea cup because it happened the week after Tom Hawkins.  It wouldn't suprise me if Carlton now capitulate and acept a mild 1 week ban for fear of being banned for further weeks. Typical AFL trial by media/public opinion type stuff.

Disagree. The charge was intentional, they both argued at the Tribunal that it was careless, the Tribunal agreed and found them guilty of careless only (and not intentional). Careless is, AFAIK, a charge worth a fine if found guilty, so fines were handed out. 

My concern is that neither of the two in incidents could be anything other than intentional. They were both, clearly, intentional acts from the respective Curnows. Yet the Tribunal concluded otherwise.

Given the guidelines automatically refer intentional conduct to the Tribunal, my understanding is that the minimum penalty if guilty must be a week, and not a fine - no idea if I’m right though. But this is where the debate about the consequence of the action kicks in, and I’m more than comfortable with the AFL’s position being that if you intentionally make contact with an umpire, you miss a week (with additional weeks given to more forceful actions).

We will reconvonviene whenever it suits us !

The decision the other night was farcical. There is absolutely no consistency in the whole adjudication of this once great game of ours. The powers that be keep meddling with the rules. No one bloody knows which way the wind is blowing week to week. The fish is rotting from the head down and it's starting to stink.

13 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I still can't get over Clarkson scoring a private meeting with Gil.

Any fair dinkum CEO would have said, if you have something to say, say it through the coaches assoc. I can't allow even the appearance of doing special favours for anyone.

Last good thing Gil did for the game was slashing the price of chips. I bet they've gone back up to what they were.

Completely disagree. If any other coach made a request to meet with Gil he would make time to see them.