Omac will smash Charlie. Ed probably out here, helps plenty.

2 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

So both Curnows tell fibs, but one is more plausible than the other.

One is 'more permitted' than the other to tell porkie-pies. Beez.was correct, had to be a win one, lose the other scenario to save AFL face. How would the AFL look now if they both got off? They both committed a crime, but one was more guilty than the other?

One week for ed Curnow 

so how much time do carltoon have to lodge their appeal of the appeal?

Just now, daisycutter said:

so how much time do carltoon have to lodge their appeal of the appeal?

to CAS perhaps ... they all did so well last time !!

What a crock - setup

25 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Good pick. To save AFL face, it really had to be, didn't it? Let's steamroll the 'Scum this weekend - and along the way, flag, tag and bag Curnow with a couple of 'get up slowly, with assistance' bumps whenever possible, and I mean more than once. 

Yep... The cynic in me had this in mind for a whiles

It's the..... ummmm...AFL way ???

As is so often the case, a fix. Geez, Charlie made contact twice...

Nearly the whole footy world new the right decision was a fine for Charlie and a week for Ed when they fronted the tribunal.

Should be a public poll.

Muppets.

I'm very surprised Charlie didn't get a week. He was intentionally holding back an umpire from getting close to a melee. That's intentionally touching an umpire, is it not?

2 minutes ago, juzzk1d said:

I'm very surprised Charlie didn't get a week. He was intentionally holding back an umpire from getting close to a melee. That's intentionally touching an umpire, is it not?

The counterargument is that the umpire shouldn’t be getting that close to a melee in the first place and Charlie was acting instinctively, perhaps even to protect the umpire.

i would’ve been happy with either course of action for Charlie, but how it took this long to get the right decision for Ed is beyond me. It was clearly intentional and clearly a frustrated act. Staggering incompetence. That said, the right decision has at least been reached regarding Ed and Hawkins can feel less aggrieved. The AFL had to act and it did.

8 hours ago, Demonland said:

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.

You can add "dangerous pushing" to that as well, especially when it makes the player not in cinque with his momentum...

It is what it is!

 

1 minute ago, P-man said:

The counterargument is that the umpire shouldn’t be getting that close to a melee in the first place and Charlie was acting instinctively, perhaps even to protect the umpire.

i would’ve been happy with either course of action for Charlie, but how it took this long to get the right decision for Ed is beyond me. It was clearly intentional and clearly a frustrated act. Staggering incompetence. That said, the right decision has at least been reached regarding Ed and Hawkins can feel less aggrieved. The AFL had to act and it did.

I suspect that the '...had to act' burden that the AFL endured was to save face as best it could, once a flawed Tribunal had taken place. However, they still preserved Carlscum's game-day integrity at all costs - staggering. 

Why did the afl actually appeal Ed? Weren’t they happy with his 1wk? Or did they want 2 or be let off? Weird

11 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Why did the afl actually appeal Ed? Weren’t they happy with his 1wk? Or did they want 2 or be let off? Weird

He didn’t get a week originally. Just a fine.

1 minute ago, P-man said:

He didn’t get a week originally. Just a fine.

Ah ok, I thought originally Ed got a week and Charlie got a fine

The Right Result™ has happened, and should have happened days ago. We at Melbourne ought to thank the AFL for that at least… 

31 minutes ago, juzzk1d said:

I'm very surprised Charlie didn't get a week. He was intentionally holding back an umpire from getting close to a melee. That's intentionally touching an umpire, is it not?

I think the AFL is going on its (perhaps wrong) assumption that an umpire would never intentionally get close to a melee. Once that is established, there's no other course of action than to acquit the player.

Irrespective of the decision, I don't understand why we have a three tier system (MRO, Tribunal, Appeals Board). Personally, I think the process for all alleged offences should see a determination by the MRO with players or the AFL able to appeal the MRO's decision to a higher authority (call it a Tribunal or Appeals Board). That higher authority's decision would then be final. That still ensures procedural fairness and resolves everything much more quickly.

The AFL Should put itself on report Manhandling the integrity of the game not getting it right the first time!

3 minutes ago, Chook said:

The Right Result™ has happened, and should have happened days ago. We at Melbourne ought to thank the AFL for that at least… 

I don’t think so. I don’t think you should be allowed to touch umpires.

AFL just condoned it.

So we will see more appeals.

 Just plain crazy.

I think there’s a bit of karma here - the whinging sooks whose doctors bulshitted the severity of damage to Rowe/Cripps have got what they deserved. Minor contact, blown out of all proportion, and lost one of their better players in form as a result. Suck a fat one bloos.

LOL Carlton BF page.

Edited May 17, 20186 yr by Devil is in the Detail

One done is better than none