Finally, a thoughtful commentary on 'deliberately' 'touching an umpire:  https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/sense-of-proportion-needed-when-imposing-penalties-for-umpire-contact-20180516-p4zfqf.html

Six umpire touching incidents in the last 3 weeks resulting in 3 fines for 'careless' and 3 'deliberate' referred to Tribunal: Hawkins suspended and the Curnow's downgraded to 'careless' and fined.

I suspect had Hawkins not been suspended no-one would raise an eyebrow about the Curnow decisions. The issue for most people is 'consistency'. 

The AFL made a rod for its back by toughening the interpretation of 'careless' or 'deliberate' mid year with the Hawkins' decision. 

Like the Tribunal did this week, maybe Michael Christian should get some evidence from umpires before making the assessment. 

I would be fair to say the biggest issue with tribunal/penalties etc...is always 'consistency'

It just there never is.

Let's be clear about Dangerfield's comment: he is simply pointing this out due to Hawkins' involvement. I doubt he would be this vocal had it been, say, a WCE player.

17 hours ago, Deeoldfart said:

Since when have the Dees been "One of the Big Clubs that Rule the AFL"?

It's a joke.

47 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I suspect had Hawkins not been suspended no-one would raise an eyebrow about the Curnow decisions. The issue for most people is 'consistency'. 

So much THIS.

I would not have cared if The Blues Brothers got off as long as Hawkins got off too. My problems with the umpiring and the tribunal (not just the ump fiddling but across the board with striking and kneeing) is there is no consistency from week to week and club to club. They make it up as they go along and maybe I'm a little one eyed but we seem to cop the rough end of the stick a lot of the times.

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

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

He might or he might not.

The point is that he shouldn't. Because of the appearance of potential favouritism. It's a conflict of interest.

That it's in a coffee shop makes it worse.

A fair dinkum CEO would  refuse to meet in that environment and force the coach ......... why the coach by the way? Why not the CEO or the president? .... to go through proper channels, eg the coaches association. What is the coaches association for if not to represent the views of the coaches to the powers that be?

11 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

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.

 

It is not too late to suspend both - particularly as there is going to be a 're-penalising' hearing of the two Curnows, most probably for extra dollars representing more significant fines. But that just 'aint good enough for the footballing public. WE MUST DRIVE THIS POINT HOME.

So, this admission by the AFL that the matter has been screwed where bias has been enabled to enter AFL decision-making and thanks to public outcry including reasonable disappointment expressed from Geelong with 'the precedent' against Hawkins, the rules and regulations must be applied: touch an umpire deliberately - go to jail - suspension to be affected.

Anything less renders the whole AFL system as redundantly corrupt and that includes the existing fine as well as the harsher penalty of a larger fine - as the AFL are mooting as this point in an attempt to not be seen as 'swayed by privilege and favouritism with vested interests around the Carlscum Football Club'. 

Mountains are made from molehills - but we must pre-measure the occupancy of each molehill to determine what mountain is being advantaged, for what purpose.

 

12 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

A fair dinkum CEO would  refuse to meet in that environment and force the coach .....

Dead right - but more than that CEO just being 'fair dinkum'. That CE0 must be totally innocent and/or above reproach if there is controversy in his/her actions. Such preferential treatment in a disparate community must be explained and justified - this is more than just having a coffee with a mate. Much more ...

So are they in or out or undecided?

16 minutes ago, dino rover said:

So are they in or out or undecided?

The hearing is at 3pm today (17/5).

 

6 minutes ago, Demonland said:

The hearing is at 3pm today (17/5).

 

Too late to run another fine live Demonland podcast from the hearing? Should be a hoot?

7 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Too late to run another fine live Demonland podcast from the hearing? Should be a hoot?

If they were Dees players I think I'd be up for that.

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

It's a joke.

So was mine  ...... just a very poor attempt.

does anyone know how the jury is selected?

surely the afl can't appeal and select the jury?

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

does anyone know how the jury is selected?

surely the afl can't appeal and select the jury?

The jury will be selected from Gill's family members (his aunty, his daughter, his stepmother, his manservant, his second cousin) and balanced by official club sources from Carlscum (2) and Essendrug(1), not forgetting Eddie Maguire and the brilliant Sam Newman - the latter two to be scrutineers. 

I hope the brother's play, I don't necessarily think they should, given the Hawkins decision, but I want the best team they can front. Against a team we traditionally struggle with, it would give us a better challenge and a little more confidence if we win. 

15 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

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

Goals? I'm in

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

does anyone know how the jury is selected?

surely the afl can't appeal and select the jury?

No...

Even the selectors don't realise they're selecting...so secret is the method ?

15 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

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.

 

When was the last time we won by 100+ and how long before that I wonder?

59 minutes ago, SFebey said:

When was the last time we won by 100+ and how long before that I wonder?

Last one I could find was 2004 – Round 6:

Round 6

Sun 2 May 2:10pm

Blues

MCG

Crowd 38799

Win 160-55

Margin 105

A. Yze 31

C. Bruce 7

 

We did get pretty close in 2011:

Round 7

Sun 8 May 2:10pm

Crows

MCG

Crowd 19987

Win 149-53

Margin 96

B. Moloney 31 A. Maric 31

C. Sylvia 4 R. Petterd 4

 

 

 

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

does anyone know how the jury is selected?

surely the afl can't appeal and select the jury?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow-face-afl-appeals-board-over-making-contact-with-umpires/news-story/7fa938d26889d41da249acefd4d5aef3

The hearings take place at 3pm EST in front of a three-man board — Murray Kellam QC, Michael Green and Stephen Jurica.

Jeff Gleeson QC will represent the AFL while Marcus Clarke QC and Paul McDermott will represent the players in their respective cases.

careful, we have been flogged when good oppo players have been missing in the past, I want to beat teams at full strength.

Gleeson QC is laying out a pretty strong case here.

You can follow all the action here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-17/live-afl-appeals-tribunal-decisions-from-3pm-aest

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

You can follow all the action here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-17/live-afl-appeals-tribunal-decisions-from-3pm-aest