2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

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.

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.

Why the AFL use a different tribunal each time is confusing? Surely you would you the same people for the entirety of the year to ensure the outcomes are consistent?

Far too much logic @titan_uranus

Please desist

will depend on counsel (presumably at top guy this time) and the jury they conjure up (maybe the hawkin's jury - lol)

MRO --> Tribunal --> AFL appeal

feels a bit like the AFL appealing against themselves.  lets face it, they control the other two unofficially.

what a farce!   you would have to assume one of them at least will be overturned, otherwise what the point!?

Well, I never!  AFL to appeal!

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-afl-confirms-it-will-appeal-tribunal-decisions-for-carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow/news-story/7a480a865412ed41f3ee1975ab318781

I eat humble pie for my earlier commentary of possible behind the scene machinations by the AFL! 

Edited May 16, 20187 yr by Lucifer's Hero

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Well, I never!  https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-afl-confirms-it-will-appeal-tribunal-decisions-for-carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow/news-story/7a480a865412ed41f3ee1975ab318781

I eat humble pie for my earlier commentary of possible behind the scene machinations by the AFL! 

don't eat humble pie yet, lucy........it could still be just a sop to quieten the hordes of dissenters and nothing will change

Bolton should have gone for a coffee with Gil. 

???  Who was it Hocking used to play for ? ????

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Well, I never!  https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-afl-confirms-it-will-appeal-tribunal-decisions-for-carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow/news-story/7a480a865412ed41f3ee1975ab318781

I eat humble pie for my earlier commentary of possible behind the scene machinations by the AFL! 

Wow, really....theres been a lot in the media this morning.

On a side note, im glad Carlton have the Curnows....they are pretty average footballers really. Helps keep them where they are.

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Bolton should have gone for a coffee with Gil. 

maybe he was booked up with a scott

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

don't eat humble pie yet, lucy........it could still be just a sop to quieten the hordes of dissenters and nothing will change

Thank you.

The acid test might be if the AFL appoint last weeks Tribunal members to hear the Appeal...at least there would be consistent minds reviewing

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

maybe he was booked up with a scott

You're on fire DC ???

Maybe stock up on the PrepH ???

Fairdinkum the AFL is just like a dog chasing its own tail

Just now, DeeZee said:

Fairdinkum the AFL is just like a dog chasing its own tail

Makes a change from licking its own....??

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

maybe he was booked up with a scott

Maybe the old Vlad put a call in?

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...

17 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Why the AFL use a different tribunal each time is confusing? Surely you would you the same people for the entirety of the year to ensure the outcomes are consistent?

Way to sensible Dom...

51 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

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 !

They had to appeal yesterday for the May one. 

55 minutes ago, McQueen said:

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

Done. Thread title change incoming tomorrow afternoon. Accepting entertaining entries. 

It's almost ? like they just make it all up as they go.....tra-la-lala-la ?

52 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

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 !

If correct I think you've hit the nail on the head there Ouch.

You have to love the AFL when it enters the judicial world .... This could detract from the build up to the big China game

Could Hawkins get "time already served" for his next incident? 

5 minutes ago, Franky_31 said:

Could Hawkins get "time already served" for his next incident? 

bit hard when you pleaded guilty in the first place

46 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

???  Who was it Hocking used to play for ? ????

8

 

47 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

???  Who was it Hocking used to play for ? ????

Geelong