3 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I think posters may have thought I was pulling the [censored] when I suggested the same thing but this is what I think will happen. And he’ll be successful. 

did the umpire look like he was needing protection?

could equally argue he prevented the umpire from doing his job

however, jake has more chance than elwood of getting off with a fine, i think

57 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

did the umpire look like he was needing protection?

could equally argue he prevented the umpire from doing his job

however, jake has more chance than elwood of getting off with a fine, i think

That's been my growing thought, too - players don't get to decide when an umpire needs protection. In this case the player was interfering with an umpire while the umpire was approaching a situation that required umpire attention. A loose scuffle like the one going on then is obviously a top candidate for fines, suspensions and free kicks to be handed out.

So it wasn't really just a touch, it was genuinely obstructing an umpire from doing their duties.

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I think posters may have thought I was pulling the [censored] when I suggested the same thing but this is what I think will happen. And he’ll be successful. 

Not sure you can claim protection as a legit argument. It is the umps job to protect. Slippery slope imho.

Both out.  Unlucky for us. ? 

Charlie wanted to keep the Umpires away because he thought the Umpire was going to report other Carlton Players and his brother pushed the Umpire in sympathy or vice versa depending on who pushed whichever Umpire first............

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

Charlie's problem is that Stevic is actually pushed back a couple of steps. That is not a touch.

If Hawkins got off they would too, but now they have to stop Chris Scott's head from exploding. 

Now I'm conflicted Redleg. Watching Chris respond to a Curnow reprieve is probably worth the sacrifice in facing stronger opposition.  

And thus Charlie is up first!!!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-15/tribunal-live-curnow-brothers-ziebell-from-5pm-aest

9 hours ago, DubDee said:

I get this argument but I just don’t agree. The respect for umpires in Afl is low from players and fans alike. Ordering them to not touch does not promote respect. 

JUst use some common sense rather than ‘you just can’t do it’. 

Making the umps professional, getting former players involved and promoting the important and difficult job umpires have is the best way to increase the respect level all the way to grass roots

The only common sense rule in the case is 'you just can't do it'...

I've been involved in games where umpires have been assaulted at lower levels (more than one) 'DubDee' and it's just not on.

There are no shades of grey, you touch an umpire and you're gone.

Going by the updates, Charlie is gone. 

 

(Edit: or not)

Edited May 15, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

C Curnow

The footage is being shown in slow-mo. Curnow accepts he looked at the ump before touching him.

•  

 

Umpire said he didn't feel threatened in the Charlie contact. If the Carlton doctor was representing the umpire he would have been fearing for his life. 

If Charlie gets done you'd think that Ed would be a shoe in too. 

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Umpire said he didn't feel threatened in the Charlie contact. If the Carlton doctor was representing the umpire he would have been fearing for his life. 

If the Carlton doctor was representing the umpire, he would say the umpire will be suffering delayed concussion in about a fortnight.

Charlie is free to play. $1000 fine. 

Great.

If Eddie gets off it's a little farcical.

Just now, Return to Glory said:

If Eddie gets off it's a little farcical.

The AFL will play up that the fines are deterrent enough. 

Surely Ed can't get off. He doesn't have the excuse Charlie has.

This is already ridiculous. Making exceptions all over the place. We're heading towards soccer where you're allowed to touch the umpires chest or shoulder when pleading a case because its not threatening. Good one AFL.

Did Hawkins plead guilty and admit fault and regret?

If so, judging by tonight, that was probably an error.

Hawkins plea bargained for just a week suspension. i.e. He plead guilty and asked for just a week. After due consideration, he was "Let off" with a week!

Double standards .............. makes a mockery of what the AFL would have us believe is a fair, even-handed system.

Both Curnows have been cleared to play. 

 

What a [censored] load of [censored]

Our game is very difficult to adjudicate with many interpretations and shades of grey. Which makes it all the more unintelligible when they take a simple situation like this and make it more complicated. Intentionally touch an umpire, get a week. Simple. 

This just allows players to touch umpires and argue their way out of it. Stupid and bad for lower levels.

Might want to change the thread title.

So you can make contact with an umpire? I’d like to hear how Ed’s wasn’t intentional.