We may also have a problem with umpire contact...on two occasions. ::)
We may also have a problem with umpire contact...on two occasions. ::)
This is going to become really interesting. There needs to be ‘degrees’. Sicily, going out of his way to front the umpires and swear at them in what looked like an aggressive ‘out of control ‘ manner AFTER the siren, is far worse than Hawkins or Curnow. Also, vision from the NB vs Frankston game showed umpires twice place a hand on a player. Non aggressive of course, but are they the same rules???
This is going to become really interesting. There needs to be ‘degrees’. Sicily, going out of his way to front the umpires and swear at them in what looked like an aggressive ‘out of control ‘ manner AFTER the siren, is far worse than Hawkins or Curnow. Also, vision from the NB vs Frankston game showed umpires twice place a hand on a player. Non aggressive of course, but are they the same rules???
The problem for Ed is that it follows a week straight after the Hawkins incident.
They're likely to give him an extra week just because 'he didn't get the memo' not to touch them :(
Ed is gone IMO, that was worse than Hawkins.......
Cripps will need to play a blinder for us to win IMO.......Oliver would be my Goddard this week...the kid really sooks when he is roughed up....
I give us a chance but Melbourne will obviously start favourites...I'd expect Kennedy to replace Ed....with maybe Jack a rough chance to play...
Any more than a fine will be an unfair outcome IMHO.
Ed didn't remonstrate and in no way was it worse than Hawkins who was staring at the umpire and was likely to have belted him had it not been for a GWS player pushing him away.
Ed is gone IMO, that was worse than Hawkins.......
Even if it's the same as Hawkins, Ed will get far more because he plays for Carlton! :o
He'll get at least as much and probably a bit extra because after the publicity of last week you just would be so careful not to touch them.
Has he been cited yet? I saw May from GCS has been
Has he been cited yet? I saw May from GCS has been
They've done May early because the Suns are going to China
The umpire was moving into Curnow's personal space. Curnow was moving away. It was a defensive action. Hawkins moved towards the umpire and was remonstrating. His was an act of aggression. THEREIN LIES THE DIFFERENCE. The media has made it all about touching the umpire which is too simplistic.
I fear the longer it takes to hear from the MRP the worse things will get for Ed, because if they thought it was trivial and minimal they would hand out a fine or a week off immediately.
The umpire was moving into Curnow's personal space. Curnow was moving away. It was a defensive action. Hawkins moved towards the umpire and was remonstrating. His was an act of aggression. THEREIN LIES THE DIFFERENCE. The media has made it all about touching the umpire which is too simplistic.
We'll wait and see but...
Laws of Australian Football 2018
19.2
REPORTABLE OFFENCES
19.2.1
Degree of Intent – Clarification
Where any of the Reportable Offences identified in Law 19.2.2 specify
that conduct may be intentional or careless:
(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege whether
the conduct was intentional or careless shall be deemed to and
be read as alleging that the conduct was either intentional or
careless; and
(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed to hear and determine the
report may find the report proven if it is reasonably satisfied that
the conduct was either intentional or careless
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;
He pushed the umpire, he has to go.
He pushed the umpire, he has to go.
..and he may have company :(
https://www.zerohanger.com/new-footage-shows-charlie-curnow-make-contact-with-an-umpire-19922/
He pushed the umpire, he has to go.
It has to be that way, at least a fine but most likely a week.
..and he may have company :(
https://www.zerohanger.com/new-footage-shows-charlie-curnow-make-contact-with-an-umpire-19922/
I doubt we can take much notice of Zero Hanger, Charlie probably needs 3 votes for protecting the umpire, and CheatsFC should send him a letter of gratitude for preventing their morons from making unintentional careless contact.
The Zero Hanger crew need to worry more about Sheedy calling for the Cheats to play like Woosha, jumping early and hitting high I presume! ;D
I doubt we can take much notice of Zero Hanger.
They need to worry about Sheedy calling for the Cheats to play like Woosha, jumping early and hitting high I presume! ;D
Charlie's one was also highlighted on Game Day yesterday...so it's out there.
Anyway we should know soon enough.
Charlie's one was also highlighted on Game Day yesterday...so it's out there.
Anyway we should know soon enough.
CheatsFC should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute by impersonating footballers! ;D
One thing I do not understand about modern umpiring is why they feel the need to get so close to players who are having a dispute. They can stand 3m away and do the job just as well.
CheatsFC should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute by impersonating footballers! ;D
One thing I do not understand about modern umpiring is why they feel the need to get so close to players who are having a dispute. They can stand 3m away and do the job just as well.
There's another bizarre aspect to all this.
Obviously the AFL are trying to enforce that Umpire contact is not on...yet in all of these incidents over the last week no umpire has reported a player for making contact with him...and as far as I can see, have not even deemed it worth a free kick. ???
They know if they've been touched!
There's another bizarre aspect to all this.
Obviously the AFL are trying to enforce that Umpire contact is not on...yet in all of these incidents over the last week no umpire has reported a player for making contact with him...and as far as I can see, have not even deemed it worth a free kick.
They know if they've been touched!
Agreed, but the AFL must consider regional and suburban umpires. No umpires no footy.
I think Charlie is fine, I think Ed has a problem.
CheatsFC should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute by impersonating footballers! ;D
One thing I do not understand about modern umpiring is why they feel the need to get so close to players who are having a dispute. They can stand 3m away and do the job just as well.
Agreed, i haven't seen the Ed footage but in Charlie's case the umpire was bizarrely close to the action....
Looks like they're both going to the tribunal :(
'
"Patrick Keane
@AFL_PKeane
9m9 minutes ago
Ed Curnow referred directly Tribunal, intentional contact umpire NWilliamson.
Jed Lamb can accept $1500, misconduct against MBaguley.
Charlie Curnow referred directly Tribunal, intentional contact umpire MStevic.
Jade Gresham can accept $1000, careless contact umpire JMollison."
Looks like they're both going to the tribunal :(
Not surprised, I think well find a rash of this now as opposition fans scour game replays and post results on social media to ensure nothing slips by scrutiny!
At VAFA Unders level I saw a girl running drinks get reported once for touching an opposition player. She had jogged out to give her team a drink after a goal when an opponent approached the player who was taking a drink, a scuffle broke out with the drink runner stuck between them. They were 190cm x 90kg, and she was 160cm x 50kg, she basically had to push them apart to get out from between them and the VAFA booked her for making deliberate contact with an opponent and gave her a three week ban. It was ludicrous, but I understand why they had to do it!
Looks like they're both going to the tribunal :(
'
"Patrick Keane
@AFL_PKeane
9m9 minutes ago
Ed Curnow referred directly Tribunal, intentional contact umpire NWilliamson.
Jed Lamb can accept $1500, misconduct against MBaguley.
Charlie Curnow referred directly Tribunal, intentional contact umpire MStevic.
Jade Gresham can accept $1000, careless contact umpire JMollison."
Cripps has also been fined for making careless contact with Glouftsis.
One thing I've noticed a couple of times is when Eleni throws the ball up too quickly can sometimes throw it slightly backwards over her head, then she runs backwards under the ball drop getting in the players way.
Surely Charlies doesn't warrant a ban? Was as minor a touch as you can do.
We just seem to always cop the raw end.....first win of the year and 2 days later we almost certainly will lose our best 2 players in the win for at least the next match
If injuries don't cruel us you can bank on something occurring. Cant take a trick.
Surely Charlies doesn't warrant a ban? Was as minor a touch as you can do.
We just seem to always cop the raw end.....first win of the year and 2 days later we almost certainly will lose our best 2 players in the win for at least the next match
If injuries don't cruel us you can bank on something occurring. Cant take a trick.
So much of this is driven by the media, and the media is infested with CheatsFC apologists.
So do you think it's accidental that the contact between Cripps, C.Curnow and E.Curnow and the umpires has been highlighted?
Even so the decisions are correct.
Only thing, a mate tells me Glouftsis was clipped in the shoulder by a CheatsFC player in the last quarter as she ran backwards after a ball up, and that hasn't been cited!
How we play it will be interesting.
They may have a case that it was careless rather than intentional, certainly in Charlie's case.
So one option is to fight it...fraught with danger in terms of a greater penalty.
If they take the guilty plea you would expect a week...but given it happened a week after the Hawkins one they may make it two because the players didn't learn from that initial penalty.
The May decision when it comes through might give us a clue as the best way to go.
The only reason to fight it is if the club feels a profound injustice has occurred, or if we are a chance for finals. Otherwise, why risk it ? Take the week and get it over with. There's no way any appeal will succeed.
▶
https://twitter.com/7AFL/status/994915394820308997
Compare the *&^%ing pair!! Who is more disrespectful to the umpire....Ed, Charlie or Sook Sicily? (Approached the umpire after the siren, Abusive language and continued for quite a while.) The umpire was fairly gutless not to report him anyway.
Seems May might have had his charge downgraded and will get off with a fine.
Charlie, at least,should take his chances and plead careless rather than intentional.
Ed probably doesn't have a great deal to lose either.
I find all of this stuff increasingly wearisome and tedious tbh. We seriously need to drain the swamp - it's a morass of petty rules and restrictions that we don't need. Just fodder for the media who are looking for sensation/scandal rather than producing some real sports journalism. ::)
This particular crackdown is starting to look a bit silly.
There's probably a dozen instances of umpire contact a round.
Trivial contact shouldn't even be an issue.
Common sense needs to come in to play.
If an umpire feels a line has been crossed report the player...otherwise, play on!
I think the rule is pretty simple and transparent, and probably fair enough. If you deliberately touch the ump, however gently or daintily, you're in strife. And I agree. They're an official of the game, not a fellow player, and you can't be touching them - it breeds a certain lack of respect. It's like a student touching a teacher in my view.
I think the rule is pretty simple and transparent, and probably fair enough. If you deliberately touch the ump, however gently or daintily, you're in strife. And I agree. They're an official of the game, not a fellow player, and you can't be touching them - it breeds a certain lack of respect. It's like a student touching a teacher in my view.
Folks are starting to post pics of incidental umpire contact.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdI_7RAVwAA-SJQ.jpg:large)
It happens fairly regularly.
With the umpires in close on stoppages you're going to see it often.
There has to be a degree of common sense.
Looks like we're the target for this week.
9 weeks? ;D
Surely no weeks if May didn't get any
I find all of this stuff increasingly wearisome and tedious tbh. We seriously need to drain the swamp - it's a morass of petty rules and restrictions that we don't need. Just fodder for the media who are looking for sensation/scandal rather than producing some real sports journalism. ::)
Agree
It’s like they can’t work out how to draw distinctions - it’s pretty clear to me what is contact which means nothing or is contact which is threatening, etc
Surely no weeks if May didn't get any
That would be the logical conclusion, if there were any logic involved here.... ::) ::)
That would be the logical conclusion, if there were any logic involved here.... ::) ::)
There's not..... but it's probably worth the risk to challenge given our ladder position.
Worst case we get to play a couple of other players (maybe Kerr) for a few weeks
I think the rule is pretty simple and transparent, and probably fair enough. If you deliberately touch the ump, however gently or daintily, you're in strife. And I agree. They're an official of the game, not a fellow player, and you can't be touching them - it breeds a certain lack of respect. It's like a student touching a teacher in my view.
x2.
x2.
Great saying "x2" but we've just seen - very clearly - with the May decision, that the rule is not clear and transparent.
Quite the opposite sadly.
There's not..... but it's probably worth the risk to challenge given our ladder position.
Worst case we get to play a couple of other players (maybe Kerr) for a few weeks
If nothing else, it's going to make the AFL look like total dumb ass amateur clowns - which they obviously are (allegedly)...
Great saying "x2" but we've just seen - very clearly - with the May decision, that the rule is not clear and transparent.
Quite the opposite sadly.
Im suggesting its a fine as opposed to suspension. May was attempting the show the umpire what happened and made contact in doing so. Charlie almost tried to shield the ump from the scuffle. Eds one? Not sure. Still reckons its a fine.
Im suggesting its a fine as opposed to suspension. May was attempting the show the umpire what happened and made contact in doing so. Charlie almost tried to shield the ump from the scuffle. Eds one? Not sure. Still reckons its a fine.
A fine is a sensible outcome - but it's not an AFL strong point (being sensible).
I (arguably) know what May (and I agree with you) was trying to do but the impact on the umpire was 20x the impact from either of the Curnow touches....
A fine is a sensible outcome - but it's not an AFL strong point (being sensible).
I (arguably) know what May (and I agree with you) was trying to do but the impact on the umpire was 20x the impact from either of the Curnow touches....
We are in agreement here, but I think we are splitting hairs. I have watched them all and in all three cases, the umpire is moved back slightly by the contact. Lets see what happens.
We are in agreement here, but I think we are splitting hairs. I have watched them all and in all three cases, the umpire is moved back slightly by the contact. Lets see what happens.
1 week for Ed and a fine for Charlie IMO, unless we can argue that Ed's contact was also careless as opposed to intentional which is the the tipping point.
This particular crackdown is starting to look a bit silly.
There's probably a dozen instances of umpire contact a round.
Trivial contact shouldn't even be an issue.
Common sense needs to come in to play.
If an umpire feels a line has been crossed report the player...otherwise, play on!
Ah, yes, I remember those days... the AFL tribunal and common sense seem mutually exclusive!
1 week for Ed and a fine for Charlie IMO, unless we can argue that Ed's contact was also careless as opposed to intentional which is the the tipping point.
He's clearly looking elsewhere when he makes contact, that should stand for somerthing?
Must nplayers wouldn't expect the umps to be literally so close....?
He's clearly looking elsewhere when he makes contact, that should stand for somerthing?
Must nplayers wouldn't expect the umps to be literally so close....?
This is definitely an issue. In fact, you see umps actually touching players alot also (which I reckon is also an issue).
If Ed or Charlie go then we need to issue a please explain for why the runner didn't get cited for making contact with Plowman last week against Adelaide. We didn't even get a free kick because he took the mark anyway and it should have been a fifty metre penalty.
This is rubbish. Issue a fine and move on.
This is definitely an issue. In fact, you see umps actually touching players alot also (which I reckon is also an issue).
the charlie 'incident'. looks obvious the ump was about to touch him...
The best thing about this is that Charlie will realise the AFL is not a level playing field, no point playing fair! I'd hate to be his opponent when he starts using his advantages unfairly! :o
Carlton should have five year contracts for him and Crippa to sign straight after the tribunal put the boots in! ;) Walk out and announce the contracts at the post tribunal doorstop, take all the wind out of the AFL's sails, and stick it up the opposition!
SEN Gerard Whiteley reckons Ed will get 2 weeks and Charlie will get 1.
Said he understands why May got a fine only as he thought his case was on the left side of Hawkins but thinks both Curnow Bros are on the right side of Hawkins case....in other words more serious :o
Are these media people for real or maybe I am too one eyed to accept things as they are.
IMO Eds is worth at worst just one week.. and Charlie should receive a fine only.
I think Ed's was worse than Hawkins.
Charlie's is a strange one that will require him to explain his actions, he might get away with it if he convinces them he was confused.
Not sure what the club intends to do but the May approach seems to be the best approach.
Plead guilty.... but argue that it was 'careless' rather than 'intentional'
I think Ed's was worse than Hawkins.
Charlie's is a strange one that will require him to explain his actions, he might get away with it if he convinces them he was confused.
x2....Charlie might get off but Eds reminded me of Greg Williams to a lesser extent...
I think Ed's was worse than Hawkins.
Charlie's is a strange one that will require him to explain his actions, he might get away with it if he convinces them he was confused.
Im definately living in the twilight zone.
I have looked at replays of all the incidents, and generally speaking a fine is what I would deem to be a fair result.
You cannot have umpires initiating such contact and then be fining players for the very same.
Routinely each week umpires walk over to players and touch them to get their attention for a chat. I realise the noise is horrendous, but you have to be consistent with how this stuff is policed.
Secondly, there is a bit of hypocrisy about the AFL approach, they wanted umpires to be more inclusive of players and for there to be more discussion/communications between players and umpires on the field. What we are seeing now is the natural consequence of that, they are now undoing all the good they have done previously.
I think the AFL needs the formality of the NRL, there is no contact between player and umpire in either direction, and the umpires are approached primarily by the captains in a polite manner.
So, what was the perceived logic in May getting off?
He was looking at - and talking to (heatedly) - the umpire....how can he claim there was no intent - what his arms moved independently of his brain?
Very odd...
Talk on SEN that Ed will get 3-4. WTF !?! This is looking like Diesel take 2.
Talk on SEN that Ed will get 3-4. WTF !?! This is looking like Diesel take 2.
Well there is the CFC penalty - just for being CFC - to factor in I suppose.
Talk on SEN that Ed will get 3-4. WTF !?! This is looking like Diesel take 2.
Straight to court if the powers that be pull that one.....
Does the umpire who was touched have any say in all this - as surely if he had a problem there and then he would have made a report....even immediately after the game surely they review the happenings during the course of the game?
May's contact jolted the umpire with his actions and intended to make contact whereas both Curnow boys just lightly touched the ump.
Ed wasn't even looking at the umpire and it looks as if he turned his head and the ump continued forward into Ed's hand.
Nothing malicious like Phil Carmen, just fine them and move on.
May's contact jolted the umpire with his actions and intended to make contact whereas both Curnow boys just lightly touched the ump.
Ed wasn't even looking at the umpire and it looks as if he turned his head and the ump continued forward into Ed's hand.
Nothing malicious like Phil Carmen, just fine them and move on.
THIS.
For those that are interested, live updates on the cases tonight.
Charlies is first.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-15/tribunal-live-curnow-brothers-ziebell-from-5pm-aest
Charlie gets off with a $1000 fine
Not guilty of intentional...just a careless boy ;)
Charlie gets off with a $1000 fine
Not guilty of intentional...just a careless boy ;)
A correct adjudication IMO
Next Curnow please!
A correct adjudication IMO
x2...Reckon Ed will get 1 week...
Ed not guilty of intentional
:D
$1000 dollar fine
$1000 fine for Ed too.
Excellent result for common sense.
But in future...as my grandfather said.
"Don't touch them...You don't know where they've been!" ;D
Excellent result for common sense.
But in future...as my grandfather said.
"Don't touch them...You don't know where they've been!" ;D
Agree, we won't do much better than that. Fair result.
Grandpa Val was the captain of Mirrool in the Riverina area.
After he retired he was a strong supporter and had to go to court once.
He was fined ten shillings for calling the umpire a "mongrel and a skunk" ;D
Clayton Oliver just sh$t himself.
Sanity prevails
Sanity prevails
Must be a blue moon tonight.
Never a doubt in my mind that fines were all they deserved. Good decisions, but I would have made sure to tell them on the way out that "you are on notice and if we see you here again this year on the same charge, you'll get weeks".
May's contact jolted the umpire with his actions and intended to make contact whereas both Curnow boys just lightly touched the ump.
Ed wasn't even looking at the umpire and it looks as if he turned his head and the ump continued forward into Ed's hand.
Nothing malicious like Phil Carmen, just fine them and move on.
Called it. ;D ;D
They were never going to suspend three players for this sort of conduct in one week.
It's absurd.
Clayton Oliver just sh$t himself.
;D
Why was Hawkins suspended?
Why was Hawkins suspended?
Apparently Hawkins moved into the umpires space to make the contact, in the other cases the umpires moved forward into the players space.
who cares, they're off...
Could the AFL appeal?
who cares, they're off...
Could the AFL appeal?
Gerard Whately believes they have to appeal.
who cares, they're off...
Could the AFL appeal?
Gil is awaiting further instructions from Clarkson, just as soon as he finishes his tiramisu. Expect an announcement any minute now.
Gerard Whately believes they have to appeal.
Key word was 'intentional' re Hawkins. Our boys and May, 'careless', which is unintentional. I think Gerard has his cods in a knot with Hawkins being a Pussycat 'n' all.
Key word was 'intentional' re Hawkins. Our boys and May, 'careless', which is unintentional. I think Gerard has his cods in a knot with Hawkins being a Pussycat 'n' all.
Whatley is another word starting with W...and ending in anker.
Key word was 'intentional' re Hawkins. Our boys and May, 'careless', which is unintentional. I think Gerard has his cods in a knot with Hawkins being a Pussycat 'n' all.
They'll look like d...h...s if they appeal.
That said,.....
Key word was 'intentional' re Hawkins. Our boys and May, 'careless', which is unintentional. I think Gerard has his cods in a knot with Hawkins being a Pussycat 'n' all.
Key is also Hawkins (on advice from legal council) pleaded guilty. So he walked in, pulled his pants down and got reamed by the tribunal. Cest La Vie
Key is also Hawkins (on advice from legal council) pleaded guilty. So he walked in, pulled his pants down and got reamed by the tribunal. Cest La Vie
Curnows pleaded guilty....to careless contact.
Hawkins couldn't plead guilty to careless contact because he walked up to the umpire and reached out.
Reckon the AFL will appeal it. Media heavyweights have gone nuts about it. Not sure why little was said about May also getting off?
All over social media and mentions on AFL site they are seriously considering it and have till midday to lodge it.
More to come I think.
Reckon the AFL will appeal it. Media heavyweights have gone nuts about it. Not sure why little was said about May also getting off?
All over social media and mentions on AFL site they are seriously considering it and have till midday to lodge it.
More to come I think.
Its BS.
Both umpires said that at no time were they threatened or thought anything of it. One umpire didn't even recall the contact at all.
If the umpires don't bother mentioning it, how can a player be suspended for it? They can't.
If the AFL are to appeal it for 'the good of the game' then perhaps they should shut the media up who keep pointing these issues out and blowing them up out of all proportion so the AFL is FORCED to act on it...for the good of the game.
Its a bad look, sure, so stop highlighting it.
Reckon the AFL will appeal it. Media heavyweights have gone nuts about it. Not sure why little was said about May also getting off?
All over social media and mentions on AFL site they are seriously considering it and have till midday to lodge it.
More to come I think.
I reckon they won't.
Lets look at this properly:
Umpires who didnt complain about misconduct, have testified to tribunal on behalf of the players fronting up as to why they shouldnt get a fine.
On what grounds could the AFL possibly decide to ask for this to be reviewed??
SEN Gerard Whateley in his closing statement at the end of his segment said he is adamant the AFL will be appealing it and it be announced shortly.
Joke if it happens. And if it does we can be 100% certain both brother will be rubbed out.
AFL wont appeal if their is any risk it wont be overturned. They cant afford to do that.
And did I mention Mr Whateley happens to be a life long Cats supporter. ::)
Appeals going in for both Curnow's but not May??? WTF??
Cases being heard at 3pm tomorrow.
Appeals going in for both Curnow's but not May??? WTF??
May is on his way to China, so maybe that's it, but thought they'd still appeal and do it next week.
You only get a week if it's intentional. Charlie's was obviously careless.
If I were the Tribunal members I'd tell the AFL to stick their job up their @rse.
So Whateley is pulling the AFL strings now...? Mmm All eyes on May...
This AFL administration is the most confused, jumping at shadows, incoherent, indecisive yet.
We see a hip to the head on the w/e -- broken neck potential -- nothing!!! Touch an umpire... oh dear. I thought the Hawkins suspension was also ridiculous when a strong fine and warning to all players would have been far more sensible.
Simply embarrassing for the AFL.
Another bad blunder by bunch of amateurs....
If they get a week each, or one is done, they should launch court action.
Is there new evidence? What are the rules about appealing? What are the grounds?!
AFL to Tribunal "Wrong answer! Keep trying until you get the right one!" ::)
Megalomaniacs.
I reckon they won't.
Lets look at this properly:
Umpires who didnt complain about misconduct, have testified to tribunal on behalf of the players fronting up as to why they shouldnt get a fine.
On what grounds could the AFL possibly decide to ask for this to be reviewed??
What LEGAL grounds? None.
There is no new evidence.
It all comes down to a "i think vs he thinks" as to whether it was intentional or not. Nothing more, nothing less.
Appeals going in for both Curnow's but not May??? WTF??
x2....From Hawkins, May to the Curnows its been inconsistent....the umpires have downplayed all contact as well, its just embarrassing for the AFL IMO.
What LEGAL grounds? None.
There is no new evidence.
It all comes down to a "i think vs he thinks" as to whether it was intentional or not. Nothing more, nothing less.
They keep changing things until they are happy it is seen 'good' in the media ::)
They keep changing things until they are happy it is seen 'good' in the media ::)
Yes this is media driven, this is the embodiment of the conflicts of interest that exist in the broadcasters and commentators.
I'll go as far to assert that if CheatsFC had won at the weekend, and if Baguley had not sledged Lamb, this debate would not be happening.
The media are not reporting the process, they are initiating it.
Posters like to make me out as some sort of conspiracy nutter, but I'll assert that if these decisions had been handed down to any club other than Carlton there would be no issue. The proof of this is already self-evident in the absence of May from the AFL's own appeal process.
Further our position is weakened by the apologist behaviour of our media presence, with commentators like Maher basically apologising for Carlton player snot being banned.
Whateley.... Leader of the Lynch mob.
Can't remember him speaking out when Selwood got off punching Thomas. High, intentional, low impact. That's weeks Gerard.
Kents >:(
Whateley.... Leader of the Lynch mob.
Can't remember him speaking out when Selwood got off punching Thomas. High, intentional, low impact. That's weeks Gerard.
Our bigger problem is really Andy Maher and the other weak minded apologists, the others are just doing what they do naturally, favouring the teams they support and stomping on the teams they don't! As a club we have no voice!
Our club should be out in the media slamming the AFL's rudderless media driven agenda, in a hope to force an Appeals Board overreaction, which we could then quickly but at some cost have reversed in court, based on the existing precedents.
If the AFL is influenced by what people like Whately say then it is WEAK WEAK and not fit to run our game - have things
descended into mob rule?? Sure, everyone is entitled to opinions, and we all know what they are like, but the AFL should be leading not being dragged along by a feaces-stirring media.
If the AFL is influenced by what people like Whately say then it is WEAK WEAK and not fit to run our game - have things
descended into mob rule?? Sure, everyone is entitled to opinions, and we all know what they are like, but the AFL should be leading not being dragged along by a feaces-stirring media.
That is both idealistic and very naive Cookie2.
From the AFLs perspective, the media make the wealth, not the players.
I thought Ed should have got a week but Zeibell getting off was worse, the AFL should be appealing that.
That is both idealistic and very naive Cookie2.
Form the AFLs perspective, the media make the wealth, not the players.
;)
My post is heavy on irony.
I know very well ideals are not the AFL's bag.
Our bigger problem is really Andy Maher and the other weak minded apologists, the others are just doing what they do naturally, favouring the teams they support and stomping on the teams they don't! As a club we have no voice!
Our club should be out in the media slamming the AFL's rudderless media driven agenda, in a hope to force an Appeals Board overreaction, which we could then quickly but at some cost have reversed in court, based on the existing precedents.
Don't s h i t where you eat my dad used to tell me.
I thought Ed should have got a week but Zeibell getting off was worse, the AFL should be appealing that.
Too True!
But the bias is in the absence of May from the AFL Appeal, his contact was more forceful than Hawkins.
If Geelong have a grievance, it should be with the May decision not the Curnow decisions, but that is not Whatley's bent.
Personally, I thought Ed would get a week and Charlie would get off, I thought Hawkins and May should have got more than a week so Geelong and GC should be very happy!
Don't s h i t where you eat my dad used to tell me.
What if you are being beaten and starved?
If we are in the care of the AFL, why are they not defending Carlton and MRP in the face of a media barrage?
What LEGAL grounds? None.
There is no new evidence.
It all comes down to a "i think vs he thinks" as to whether it was intentional or not. Nothing more, nothing less.
In other words, this appeal should fall on deaf ears.
Its ridiculous, that these two incidents have resulted in this outcome.
But, this is the world we live in. The fact that May got off, and the Curnows are coming under fire is a bit absurd.
If you say the May content was not intentional - when the bloke was looking at - and talking to forcefully - the umpire before/during making decent contact, there is no way either Curnow brother can get done.
Moreover, plenty of evidence to support the fact that the brothers weren't even aware of the contact they made (hence lack of intent), that it was minimal at best (neither ump had an issue with the contact).
Case over.
I hope CFC is getting the lawyers ready today.
This is so pathetic.
What a load or rubbish - neither contact was aggressive for screws sake!
God I wish there was some bloody commonsense involved but obviously too much to ask for.
If they don't want us in their crappy competition just tell us.
Don't just keep flogging us
We'll start our own comp >:(
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/afl-weighs-up-appeal-on-curnow-verdicts
THE AFL will appeal downgraded umpire contact findings against Carlton brothers Ed and Charlie Curnow, describing the sanctions imposed as "manifestly inadequate".
The Appeal Board hearing will be held on Thursday at 3pm AEST.
The League will be seeking a suspension for both players after they escaped with $1000 fines on Tuesday night at the Tribunal.
Football operations general manager Steve Hocking made the decision ahead of Wednesday's 12pm deadline to file an appeal.
GET BREAKING NEWS ALERTS Subscribe for free with the AFL on Messenger
Hocking said the AFL had appealed both of the financial sanctions on the grounds that:
no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it
the sanction imposed was manifestly inadequate.
The Blues pair both successfully argued before the AFL Tribunal that their separate contact incidents in Saturday's game against Essendon were careless and not intentional, and were fined $1000 each rather than suspended.
The brothers had been referred straight to the Tribunal by Match Review Officer Michael Christian, who initially graded both incidents as intentional.
A week earlier Geelong forward Tom Hawkins agreed on a plea deal with AFL counsel, effectively accepting a one-week ban and acknowledging his contact with an umpire was intentional.
Gold Coast co-captain Steven May was cleared on intentional umpire contact at the Tribunal on Monday night, and instead fined $1000 after also successfully arguing his contact was careless.
The AFL confirmed it was not appealing that decision.
"We accepted that decision on the examination of the evidence that was put and chose not to appeal," a League spokesman said.
Its the good old Dennis Denuto argument.
Hawkins copped a week, so should the Curnows....
Meanwhile look who's talking. Buddha Hocking!
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-16/afl-weighs-up-appeal-on-curnow-verdicts
Its the good old Dennis Denuto argument.
Hawkins copped a week, so should the Curnows....
Meanwhile look who's talking. Buddha Hocking!
Its actually Buddhas brother. The lesser known of the hockings. Former back pocket player for the catters Steve Hocking.
Its actually Buddhas brother. The lesser known of the hockings. Former back pocket player for the catters Steve Hocking.
Yep its Steve...is it right that Hocking has the power to ratify all tribunal decisions hence making him the defacto tribunal?
Its actually Buddhas brother. The lesser known of the hockings. Former back pocket player for the catters Steve Hocking.
Sounds like the handbaggers arent happy that their bloke is the only one getting done.
So touching an umpire is a reportable/punishable by suspension offense... unless you're demonstrating something (May) :o
To me, manifestly inadequate is a worry from the AFL. $1000 vs one week is a bit of the same thing (although 1 week loses eligibility for the Brownlow and doesn't penalise the team.
Manifestly inadequate would mean they want at least 2 weeks, maybe 3 or more as has been suggested in the media.
They are both trivial and have been stirred up way out of proportion.
May's action could have been careless, but more likely too contact an umpire. Surely Ziebell's kneeing was worse much greater potential for thuggery in other levels of the game. Can other clubs appeal decisions?
Seems the AFL believes our club is an easy target and will simply lie down.
Seems the AFL believes our club is an easy target and will simply lie down.
Good test for the President...where is MLG?..........I'm sure Jeffrey Kennett would have been all over the AFL by now.....
Hope I'm wrong, but there is absolutly no way either Curnow will be playing this week!!.
The AFL couldn't afford to challenge this and lose.
I'm still stunned how much 'outrage' this has stirred up in the media.. no bigger issues in this country!!??
Shame they are not as passionate about power prices etc.
I think it Frank Sinatra that said on leaving Australia... "Australia has too many journalists, not enough news".
Its actually Buddhas brother. The lesser known of the hockings. Former back pocket player for the catters Steve Hocking.
Wasn't he the one responsible for evening up and knocking out Leigh Mathews behind play following Mathews king hitting Bruns of Geelong in 85? Good pedigree in the hitting dept but I guess not against an umpire. ::)
Yep its Steve...is it right that Hocking has the power to ratify all tribunal decisions hence making him the defacto tribunal?
Someone from the AFL has to decide if/when to appeal, i believe he is in charge of that.
He doesn't get to decide their fate on appeal though.
He does have a lot of power.
Unlike many on here, i don't think its an agenda against the Navy Blue.
My gut feel, without my navy blue glasses, was that Charlie should've got off, and give the hawkins precedent, ed should get a week.
Keep in mind, that gut feel is based on the comments from the AFL re Hawkins incident.
In reality, i think Ed should get off but based on precedent though, ed will go.
Good test for the President...where is MLG?..........I'm sure Jeffrey Kennett would have been all over the AFL by now.....
Yes our silence all day long has been deafening!
Yes our silence all day long has been deafening!
I hadn't noticed that. ;D
Wasn't he the one responsible for evening up and knocking out Leigh Mathews behind play following Mathews king hitting Bruns of Geelong in 85? Good pedigree in the hitting dept but I guess not against an umpire. ::)
A touch before my time, but i seem to remember him being in some kind of incident of note...that may have been it.
So the AFL is saying the AFL Tribunal is incompetent.
So the AFL is saying the AFL Tribunal is incompetent.
Yep. I laughed at that. That isn't going to piss them off at all.
Who appointed the tribunal? I'm assuming the AFL will sack whoever was in charge of that appointment given their ability to make a decision is "manifestly inadequate" >:D
Hocking said the AFL had appealed both of the financial sanctions on the grounds that:
no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it the sanction imposed was manifestly inadequate.
Me thinks they will be fine - "no Tribunal acting reasonably"?
Well they just let May off for doing more than ED or Charlie did and which player's contact did all players use in their defence (can't remember) - do we have footage of that?
But "no Tribunal acting reasonably" is an extraordinary high standard to reach/meet.
But will play Sunday imo.
I'm not sure who else is on the tribunal, but these four former MRP committee members form part of the tribunal panel.
Nathan Burke
Jimmy Bartel
Michael Jamison
Jason Johnson
Last night I believe it was,
Wayne Henwood
Stewart Loewe
Jason Johnson
Both Curnows will be rubbed out. The AFL knows the result of an appeal before it decides to appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if the club has already been unofficially advised to prepare for Sunday's game without either Curnow playing. The club will also have been told that if it wants to consider legal action it will not have a Friday night game for 5 years, and will have 14 Sunday twilight games next year. That's how the autocrasy works. I just hope they don't give Ed 2 matches to make an even bigger example, but I don't think that will happen as it will affect future cases. Not much the club can do, but the angle I'd be working on is who are the anonymous minions who look at video of games and highlight incidents for the MRO to look at. There have been numerous examples from this weeks games on social media platforms of players from other clubs (including Essendon) making light contact with their hand on an umpires chest, back or arm, yet these are not even referred to the MRO. Is there bias in this process? I say yes. The only players cited are from Carlton and GCS, and the AFL subsequently find a way to make sure their Gold Coast lovechild club are not disadvantaged
So touching an umpire is a reportable/punishable by suspension offense... unless you're demonstrating something (May) :o
I can imagine Yarran demonstrating on an umpire what he did to Chapman's head, and walking free. :D
Very good article by Peter Ryan over at The Rage (https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/sense-of-proportion-needed-when-imposing-penalties-for-umpire-contact-20180516-p4zfqf.html)
Not sure I completely agree, I think proportionality would indicate May should have been done like Hawkins and the Curnows fined.
Very interesting that the article doesn't even mention May. I just drove my son home from footy training and it was being discussed as a contrast between what the Curnows did and what Hawkins did. Again May was not even mentioned. I suspect the AFL have sent a directive to their media partners to not mention the May case any more
Seems like such a major production for a few fairly minor actions. So much discussion, air time, outrage etc. for nothing.
Not nothing, going to cost the Curnows a game of footy
Not nothing, going to cost the Curnows a game of footy
It's an enormous hullabaloo even for a week of footy. Mind you, the Blues Brothers have been on the go for a while, so a bit of siddown time won't go astray.
Extremely disappointing that now many media commentators are beginning to demonize the Curnow boys, and baying for Curnow blood.
The wording of Hocking's referral to the tribunal is inflammatory, unnecessarily exaggerated and almost hysterical (as in hysteria, not humour).
McClure told Whately not to drive through Carlton lol.
And still no one mentions Steven May??
(https://img00.deviantart.net/656c/i/2006/242/1/7/blues_brothers_by_hemi_427.jpg)
Or maybe they will?.................. >:(
(https://img00.deviantart.net/656c/i/2006/242/1/7/blues_brothers_by_hemi_427.jpg)
Or maybe they will?.................. >:(
Bloke on the left is hiding out posting rubbish on a footy forum but dont tell anyone.... ;)
A touch before my time, but i seem to remember him being in some kind of incident of note...that may have been it.
Was definitely Steve Hocking alright. Leigh Mathews ended up having assault charges brought against him and was deregistered for a while IIRC, don't remember Hocking even being cited! Hocking continued career using the knuckle - I remember he was also involved in major fisticuffs again, this time with Dermie during the '89 GF, when the Cats head-hunted the Hawks in the first 20 mins. He's not entitled or fit to pass judgement on anyone else and be taken seriously imo, especially in the light of the innocuous incidents we're talking about here.
Maybe this aspect of his personality deserves a reprise and some scrutiny in the media?
Bloke on the left is hiding out posting rubbish on a footy forum but dont tell anyone.... ;)
I didn't mean to be the one to point the finger EB! :))
I didn't mean to be the one to point the finger EB! :))
Shh! He's on a mission from Ablett!
As a curiosity, how do we plan for Sunday's game?
- 2 players, regular 22, cited on Monday.
- start considering alternatives for replacements/tweak to game plan (eg kick it to Charlie won't work)
- get relief at the tribunal (kick it to Charlie will work again)
- appeal lodged - 2 days twiddle thumbs (waiting to find out if we kick it to Charlie or not)
- Thurs 3pm start the planning for Sunday
It is different to an injury, as there isn't intimate knowledge about which outcome is more likely (eg we hope Murph will get up, but we know he is a 30% chance to play)
Where does the authority of the tribunal begin and end if the AFL can direct them to review until such time as they are satisfied.
Pretty disgusting to apply a standard to all incidents such as these when we all know the circumstances were entirely different between the four players in question.
Slightly off topic, but who was that umpire who reported Justin Murphy for swearing at an abusive spectator at Princes Park?
.........
Slightly off topic, but who was that umpire who reported Justin Murphy for swearing at an abusive spectator at Princes Park?
I don't know, but moving further off topic, JM sounds like a right piece of work :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5403153/Justin-Murphy-taunts-ex-girlfriend-blowtorch.html
Total scumbag. Doing jail time for taking off her finger.
As he should. His father was a great guy and I chatted with Justin (carlton days) often. Dunno what changed him into an absolute menace he now is, but he must live with that. Got zero tolerance for that horrific abuse
Seemed to lose the plot once he left the AFL system. Drifted off the rails playing in the DVFL, got progressively worse from there.
McClure told Whately not to drive through Carlton lol.
Hilarious...Whately knew Sellers was furious with him too, nearly sh.t a brick at the end & Flubbo was very very sheepish sitting next to him, worried, no doubt that if he opened his mouth, he would have copped a backhander to the mush ;D
All but resigned to losing Ed.
Charlie may be a slight chance to get off....but the AFL have their torches and pitchforks out so he'll probably go as well.
Ed 2 Charlie 1 is where I suspect it will end up but....
We need to move on otherwise it becomes a distraction.
Move on, but don't forget.
There will be a time of reckoning.
A time when the AFL needs something from us.
As he should. His father was a great guy and I chatted with Justin (carlton days) often. Dunno what changed him into an absolute menace he now is, but he must live with that. Got zero tolerance for that horrific abuse
The Essenscum influence?
Move on, but don't forget.
There will be a time of reckoning.
A time when the AFL needs something from us.
Yeah right, like that will happen. They will just take what they want.
As a curiosity, how do we plan for Sunday's game?
- 2 players, regular 22, cited on Monday.
- start considering alternatives for replacements/tweak to game plan (eg kick it to Charlie won't work)
- get relief at the tribunal (kick it to Charlie will work again)
- appeal lodged - 2 days twiddle thumbs (waiting to find out if we kick it to Charlie or not)
- Thurs 3pm start the planning for Sunday
It is different to an injury, as there isn't intimate knowledge about which outcome is more likely (eg we hope Murph will get up, but we know he is a 30% chance to play)
This particular AFL administration cares naught for such things. The fact that it's the CFC they're treating like 2nd class citizens (creating disruption to planning) is a bonus.
If this present AFL administration was a football team, they'd have been relegated to a much lower league long ago.
If this present AFL administration was a business with a reasonable product in a highly competitive market, they'd have gone broke long ago. Said it before and I'll say it again, they're lucky they have a great product... tiny jockey's on massive horses.
Yeah right, like that will happen. They will just take what they want.
That assumes we'll always be in the lowly position we're in at the moment ;)
That assumes we'll always be in the lowly position we're in at the moment ;)
Unfortunately Lods it almost 20years now and they (AFL) keep poking us with pitch forks.
Unfortunately Lods it almost 20years now and they (AFL) keep poking us with pitch forks.
Without taking this too far off topic that's a large part of the problem.
The AFL at the time of the salary cap scandal hit us over the fence.
Subsequently we took a stance of appeasement and co-operation.
Under the administration following Elliott we bent over backwards to be the good guys.
It was yes sir , no sir, three bags full sir!
Where is our sword so we can throw ourselves on it!
It's a tradition we've continued to follow...apart from perhaps a brief period under Pratt
We're still a shy, quiet, submissive club
That's a bit complicated by the rebuilding process we're currently undergoing but I suspect we're perceived by the AFL as a club you can clip around the ears and we won't give a yelp.
So if an example needs to be made (don't touch an umpire) Carlton are the 'go to' club.
They're down in the dumps
They're not challenging for a finals position.
...and they'll cop it quietly.
Would they expect the same response from a Geelong or Hawthorn?
I doubt it.
But because that's the way it is now doesn't mean it's the way it always has to be.
As we toughen and mature on-field it may be that we also have to toughen and mature in the board room.
Very hard to climb a ladder when you continuously allow the person ahead of you to stand on your fingers.
Our golden opportunity to progress was while Fitzpatrick was in charge, but he was too moral and professional to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and act in a biased manner!
We may be able to take the moral high ground in recent times, but the rest will still be laughing at us!
Fair has nothing to do with success in the AFL!
Surely people realise this;
- After the CheatsFC saga!
- Every time a Scott gets in the media preempting one of their players being reported, and they get off despite the blunt video evidence!
- When CheatsFC beg for AFL financial support after spending millions litigating against the AFL, and get it!
- When a CHF leaves Carlton with zero compensation to finish in Norps top four goal kickers four years running!
- When despite being the highest rating broadcasts for the AFL, the media want Carlton removed form prime time fixture, and the AFL do it!
- When the AFL send Carlton memos about the clubs AFLW game style, despite that structure being mirrored at many other clubs!
- When despite being handed a penalty consistent with 5 out of the last 6 MRP/Tribunal decisions, the AFL appeal the Carlton penalties.
Good on Maclure, there is not enough of it, if you are going to be stoned anyway you may as well throw some rocks back!
So if an example needs to be made (don't touch an umpire) Carlton are the 'go to' club.
They're down in the dumps
They're not challenging for a finals position.
...and they'll cop it quietly.
Would they expect the same response from a Geelong or Hawthorn?
I doubt it.
Thing is Lods, neither of those two clubs have to cop anything. See Selwood hit on Lindsay Thomas (thrown out) Mitchell elbow to Goldsteins head (fine) and that's only this year!
The double standards, inconsistencies and just plain wrong calls the AFL continue to roll out are diabolical. It shouldn't be that hard.
Very hard to climb a ladder when you continuously allow the person ahead of you to stand on your fingers.
Our golden opportunity to progress was while Fitzpatrick was in charge, but he was too moral and professional to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and act in a biased manner!
Nothing moral about Fitzpatrick, he was too busy with his nose in the trough organising games at stadiums that he owned or was trying to buy.
He couldn't give a flying fark
Hilarious...Whately knew Sellers was furious with him too, nearly sh.t a brick at the end & Flubbo was very very sheepish sitting next to him, worried, no doubt that if he opened his mouth, he would have copped a backhander to the mush ;D
Not surprised in the slightest, I hope Sellars, off camera, called them on their disappointing behaviour.
I confess to being surprised by Whateley's seeming covert venom toward the CFC/Curnow boys (thinly disguised as something else). I always saw Whateley -- until now -- as intelligent, articulate and measured in his comments but he was clearly (in a passive/aggressive way) angry. His comments around the Curnow's decision, 'I thought I knew ...etc... but clearly I know nothing...' or words to that effect, are just childish and tantrumesque. If he didn't agree with the decision he should have simply been an adult and said that up front, instead it's come across as deeply personal against our club and the 2 players concerned. Resorting to drama/theatrics is really disappointing from someone we expect far more objectivity from.
Then Robbo starts crying poor Baguley because of his facial defect (don't know what that is... ) and how that would have been difficult for him growing up... as if this justifies his behaviour. Astounding and puerile perspective.
Not a good week for 360, far too subjective/personal agenda driven. Thought Whateley was more professional that this. From Robbo we expect little else.
Maclure is now and always was a champion for and of the club
If he speaks, I listen. Might not fit into the PC mould, but never one to shirk it
Not surprised in the slightest, I hope Sellars, off camera, called them on their disappointing behaviour.
I confess to being surprised by Whateley's seeming covert venom toward the CFC/Curnow boys (thinly disguised as something else). I always saw Whateley -- until now -- as intelligent, articulate and measured in his comments but he was clearly (in a passive/aggressive way) angry. His comments around the Curnow's decision, 'I thought I knew ...etc... but clearly I know nothing...' or words to that effect, are just childish and tantrumesque. If he didn't agree with the decision he should have simply been an adult and said that up front, instead it's come across as deeply personal against our club and the 2 players concerned. Resorting to drama/theatrics is really disappointing from someone we expect far more objectivity from.
Then Robbo starts crying poor Baguley because of his facial defect (don't know what that is... ) and how that would have been difficult for him growing up... as if this justifies his behaviour. Astounding and puerile perspective.
Not a good week for 360, far too subjective/personal agenda driven. Thought Whateley was more professional that this. From Robbo we expect little else.
They're talking with supporter emotion (Geelong and Essendon)...when that comes into play off goes your head and on goes a pumpkin...in some cases the pumpkin is a better look ;)
When I used to listen to Grandstand AFL on the radio a few years back, Whateley alongside Tim Lane was very good. He's really gone downhill since, and I don't know why.
When I used to listen to Grandstand AFL on the radio a few years back, Whateley alongside Tim Lane was very good. He's really gone downhill since, and I don't know why.
$s
Soul has been sold. Happens to a lot of people.
Not surprised in the slightest, I hope Sellars, off camera, called them on their disappointing behaviour.
I confess to being surprised by Whateley's seeming covert venom toward the CFC/Curnow boys (thinly disguised as something else). I always saw Whateley -- until now -- as intelligent, articulate and measured in his comments but he was clearly (in a passive/aggressive way) angry. His comments around the Curnow's decision, 'I thought I knew ...etc... but clearly I know nothing...' or words to that effect, are just childish and tantrumesque. If he didn't agree with the decision he should have simply been an adult and said that up front, instead it's come across as deeply personal against our club and the 2 players concerned. Resorting to drama/theatrics is really disappointing from someone we expect far more objectivity from.
Then Robbo starts crying poor Baguley because of his facial defect (don't know what that is... ) and how that would have been difficult for him growing up... as if this justifies his behaviour. Astounding and puerile perspective.
Not a good week for 360, far too subjective/personal agenda driven. Thought Whateley was more professional that this. From Robbo we expect little else.
I wonder if this stems from the fact that the Curnow brothers are both from the greater Geelong area....
$s
Soul has been sold. Happens to a lot of people.
Yes, perhaps you're right. I was hoping for something that was inevitable and inescapable, like senility syndrome, rather than just greed.
Maclure is now and always was a champion for and of the club
If he speaks, I listen. Might not fit into the PC mould, but never one to shirk it
I like Maclure too, will stick up for the club but also give the club a whack when it needs it....sometimes can be way off target but his intentions are good IMO...
$s
Soul has been sold. Happens to a lot of people.
Agree....got carried away with his position of power too as a media commentator and because he has had a bit of respect in the industry a few people listen to him.
Then Robbo starts crying poor Baguley because of his facial defect (don't know what that is... ) and how that would have been difficult for him growing up... as if this justifies his behaviour. Astounding and puerile perspective.
Has like a birthmark or skin lesion type blemish on his bottom lip or chin, looks a bit like a burn scar.
If Lamb was into him about that then it's probably reasonable that Baguley fires something back, but not using a dead parents murder as ammunition. But I have doubts about the Flubbo assertion, because Baguley's physical appearance is dead set obvious yet it was the 3rd or 4th version of events offered in defense of this actions. You'd think he'd be on the front foot given he's had this issue for a long time, Baguley wouldn't be new to dealing with it.
Agree....got carried away with his position of power too as a media commentator and because he has had a bit of respect in the industry a few people listen to him.
Yes he seems to have assumed a regal air now on SEN - presiding grandiosely over the program. ::)
KB sounds great by comparison....... :))
Yes he seems to have assumed a regal air now on SEN - presiding grandiosely over the program. ::)
KB sounds great by comparison....... :))
KB doesn't take himself as seriously as Whatley, but he can be just as insidious!
People should start asking Whatley on air when his is opening his journalistic investigation into Geelong's BumberT era!
In news just in:
Essendon player Jake Stringer may be charged with loitering, however the club are confident they can successfully defend any charge, particularly intent.
In news just in:
Essendon player Jake Stringer may be charged with loitering, however the club are confident they can successfully defend any charge, particularly intent.
Bahahaha, the gift that keeps on giving. ;D
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-17/live-afl-appeals-tribunal-decisions-from-3pm-aest
Charlie's case done and dusted....but they're going to hold the decision until Ed's is done and deliver both verdicts at the end.
We cannot really trust the AFL's ticker tape, it's paraphrasing both councils, but it feels like nobody wants Charlie done over.
Someone needs to ask Whately why they used to have a segment on 360 that was a skit show of Bomber T off his chops.
I've been on many similar tribunals (not in sport), and it strikes me as very odd that they don't render a verdict after each case? Why wait to give both verdicts at the end? I'm thinking the AFL wants to make a statement
Charlie's case done and dusted....but they're going to hold the decision until Ed's is done and deliver both verdicts at the end.
Peculiar, unless they knew the results from the get-go... ::)
One problem for the players is the change in the panel, Gleeson is presenting the AFL case, and he's old school legal along with Kellam and Green.
I got the feeling that our club thinks Charlie has a chance to have the appeal dismissed, but that Ed will have the appeal upheld!
The AFL originally tried to get the cases heard together but that wasn't allowed
The joint announcement of the decision was probably a concession.
Here it comes
Charlie Curnow evidence clear saw umpire and spoke to him and had contact with him. But took place while he was trying to break up potential melee. Open to consider his actions as inadvertent.
Cannot be said Tribunal decision was so unreasonable.
Appeal dismissed.
Bet Ed gets a week, or has his fine increased.
Might be a while!
"a few seconds ago
Ed Curnow appeal. Video demonstrates clearly concession was honest and well based. But in those circumstances not other conclusion reasonable that contact was intentional.
Appeal upheld"
"Gleeson QC for appeal:
- no scope for automatic suspension to be applied
- in the guidelines is included in serious acts of misconduct ... not as serious as some of those charges, but sits in this category for a good reason, a very serious matter
- minimum sanction should be a one-week suspension"
Gleeson wants a week.
Makes an assumption about Ed's state of mind, Gleeson calls it a brain fade!
"Gleeson:
- it was just a brainfade. he touched him, he meant to"
Ch.7 News. Charlie clear, Ed guilty. Still deliberating the penalty.
Bit of a slip ;D
Not sure if it was Gleeson or the reporting bloke Bowen
"Gleeson:
clarity and certainty is needed to let players know that this is the rule. If you touch a player and you mean to, you will be suspended"
Glad Clarke highlighted the difference in intent between Hawkins and Ed, Hawkins was clearly hostile to he umpire and the umpire told him so!
This whole situation has come about because they've got previous cases wrong.
"Clarke says a fine is appropriate. Says $2000 would be appropriate."
Bit of a slip ;D
Not sure if it was Gleeson or the reporting bloke Bowen
"Gleeson:
clarity and certainty is needed to let players know that this is the rule. If you touch a player and you mean to, you will be suspended"
I noticed that as well. The media and various others like Buckley and Danger have been baying for Ed's blood since the initial verdict was handed down.
At any rate, the amount of air time, discussion, hysteria etc. for what are minor actions that may result in a one week ban is ridiculous. You'd think it was a murder case.
Ed gets a week
I hope we have plenty of Blues fans get on Whateley's show and give it to him tomorrow.
Hawkin's should clearly have gotten two weeks.
Not clear if Charlie's result means his fine is also dismissed.
I hope we have plenty of Blues fans get on Whateley's show and give it to him tomorrow.
Not clear if Charlie's result means his fine is also dismissed.
No, $1000 fine stands.
I guess we'll be needing Kerridge and Graham to give Cripps a hand this weekend.
I'm not Ed's biggest fan, but he was mining a rich vein of form the last few weeks.
Reports are that the jowls from "Pudding Face the Elder" are spreading across the western district as we post!
Smalls towns in the jowl path have been alerted to evacuate in fear of cheek crush death or drowning by drooling!
Mitch Cleary
Verified account @cleary_mitch
On whether Patrick Dangerfield should be making comment on the tribunal findings...
Carlton football boss Andrew McKay: “I don’t think I should comment on that, and neither should Patrick.”
5:03 PM - 17 May 2018
The AFL gets its pound of flesh! >:D
Hocking maintains the tradition...........
What a load of rubbish.
I don't get why Steven May's wasn't looked at.
I think it's time the Judge got on radio and called out this blatant ridiculousness with so many geelong people commenting publically on an AFL outcome, and also to highlight the AFL not trusting its tribunal to get matters right.
Can we appeal the appeal??
I think we should.
My gut feel, without my navy blue glasses, was that Charlie should've got off, and give the hawkins precedent, ed should get a week.
Keep in mind, that gut feel is based on the comments from the AFL re Hawkins incident.
In reality, i think Ed should get off but based on precedent though, ed will go.
These were my comments in regards to the AFL appeal.
I think the right call has been made, given how the AFL painted themselves into a corner in regards to Hawkins suspension.
Ideally ed would get 'half a game' suspension by comparison, but we know that can't happen.
re May, i haven't seen the incident so can't comment, but would like to if someone has a link.
I was a bit confused after the Tribunal decisions on Tuesday night. Can you touchj an umpire or not? Thankfully the AFL have made it perfectly clear today. You cannot deliberately touch an umpire if your name is Thomas or Edward. You can deliberately touch an umpire if your name is Charles or Steven. If you play for Geelong you cannot deliberately touch an umpire. If you play for Gold Coast you can touch umpires all you want. If you play for Carlton you can touch an umpire and you will either be suspended or fined depending on whether or not Gerard Whateley likes you. Perfectly clear
The whole thing is ridiculous, umpires are part of the game and there should be interaction between them and players, the only things that we need to watch out for are intimidation and/or threatening behaviour.
Robbie Muir would have been rubbed out for life today.
Wonder what Phil Carmen or John Burke for that matter would have to say about all of this? Now there's a couple of blokes who really knew how to "touch" an umpire.
re May, i haven't seen the incident so can't comment, but would like to if someone has a link.
I reckon it's the most forceful of the lot...actually pushes the umpire back
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-05-12/may-makes-umpire-contact
Gleeson thought Hawkins should be rubbed out for 2 matches, and it became one match because of TH's guilty plea. I guess we should be grateful for that.
Ed gets a week - Whateley does cartwheels.
Charlie fine only - Whateley cries, then head explodes.
The whole thing is ridiculous, umpires are part of the game and there should be interaction between them and players, the only things that we need to watch out for are intimidation and/or threatening behaviour.
Robbie Muir would have been rubbed out for life today.
I think the principle should be no physical contact between players and umpires, irrespective of whether the former or latter initiates the contact. The problem is that AFL footy is a contact sport, and it's simply not possible to avoid contact all the time. The AFL simply needs better and more sensible protocols and processes for dealing with it, not the 3 ring circus nonsense we've just endured.
I'd have no dramas if May had received a week as well, but as it stands this entire exercise is yet another AFL sham where the CFC cops it.
Duck you Whateley. I hope the karma bus collects you and the crap club you support.
I think the principle should be no physical contact between players and umpires, irrespective of whether the former or latter initiates the contact. The problem is that AFL footy is a contact sport, and it's simply not possible to avoid contact all the time. The AFL simply needs better and more sensible protocols and processes for dealing with it, not the 3 ring circus nonsense we've just endured.
To be perfectly honest I don't think any of the incidents of the last two weeks are worth a suspension.
At no time would the umpires have felt threatened ...some didn't even (apparently) remember the contact.
A sliding scale of fines should be sufficient.
Players and umpires will always come into contact
When there is either obvious malice or force then the suspensions can come into play.
That could equally apply in junior leagues...none of those incidents would cause undue concern for a junior umpire.
It could be easily covered with a free+50metres.
I reckon it's the most forceful of the lot...actually pushes the umpire back
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-05-12/may-makes-umpire-contact
Surprised the AFL is still letting us see that footage :o
Touch an umpire its a free kick and a 50.
Touch an umpire with malicious intent where the ump feels threatened the a red card and their off for the game.
Simple! ::)
To be perfectly honest I don't think any of the incidents of the last two weeks are worth a suspension.
At no time would the umpires have felt threatened ...some didn't even (apparently) remember the contact.
A sliding scale of fines should be sufficient.
Players and umpires will always come into contact
When there is either obvious malice or force then the suspensions can come into play.
That could equally apply in junior leagues...none of those incidents would cause undue concern for a junior umpire.
It could be easily covered with a free+50metres.
I agree lods. But having a rule that says no contact at least makes clear the principle. If there's no rule, or a rule that allows "friendly contact" or "incidental contact", I just think it has the potential to get farcical. Are you allowed to ruffle the umpire's hair when a decision goes your way, because you're pleased with the outcome ? That's not threatening or menacing.
I agree lods. But having a rule that says no contact at least makes clear the principle. If there's no rule, or a rule that allows "friendly contact" or "incidental contact", I just think it has the potential to get farcical. Are you allowed to ruffle the umpire's hair when a decision goes your way, because you're pleased with the outcome ? That's not threatening or menacing.
High Contact...free kick ;D
The rule is still there.
Touch an umpire and it's a fine..possibly a big one depending on the contact.
At the very least, as BP says, free kick+50.
High Contact...free kick ;D
The rule is still there.
Touch an umpire and it's a fine..possibly a big one depending on the contact.
At the very least, as BP says, free kick+50.
Agree with all that lods. I'm really quite embarrassed by all the nonsense of the last few days. Overkill is an understatement.
Agree with all that lods. I'm really quite embarrassed by all the nonsense of the last few days. Overkill is an understatement.
Yep
An awful lot of fuss for a total of a 'one' match increase in penalty.
We should've gone into the hearing using the classic line of 'It's the vibe of it all, it's Mabo'... would've come out grinning the other side?
On Wednesday night, Geelong superstar and AFL Players' Association president Patrick Dangerfield labelled the Tribunal's decision to clear Ed Curnow of intentional umpire contact "farcical" in the wake of Cats spearhead Tom Hawkins' one-match suspension on the same charge.
Thanks Danger and good on you for looking after your fellow player in your role as pres of the players association and now defacto tribunal advisor.....
On Wednesday night, Geelong superstar and AFL Players' Association president Patrick Dangerfield labelled the Tribunal's decision to clear Ed Curnow of intentional umpire contact "farcical" in the wake of Cats spearhead Tom Hawkins' one-match suspension on the same charge.
Thanks Danger and good on you for looking after your fellow player in your role as pres of the players association and now defacto tribunal advisor.....
Agree EB. Commentary bans should be in place for circumstances like this. It is absolutely trial by media. Imagine the outcry if Ed gets off ?
Next time a cats players gets rubbed out maybe the club could tweet about the apparent leniency.....
Obviously theý're smarting from the Hawkins decision...but Geelong and it's supporters have been very vocal in driving the events of the last few days.
One to put in the "Little Black Book" for when we play them.
The AFLPA is supposed to represent ALL players. Do Carlton players feel they have adequate representation at the top of the AFLPA?
So the AFL has said you can NOT make intentional contact with an umpire.
Doesn't matter if is not forceful.
Doesn't matter if the umpire never felt threatened.
Doesn't matter if the umpire even remembers it.
Doesn't matter if the umpire thinks it is not worthy of reporting.
ANY INTENTIONAL CONTACT WITH AN UMPIRE is wrong and deserves a week.
If that is the rule. So be it. No grey area.
My counterargument....
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/vJkmbIPVfbrA4_um9NAjSA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-AU/homerun/y7.7sport/10252a83d6370b29918ec82cac293154)
(http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Sam+Hay+AFL+Rd+5+Western+Bulldogs+v+Brisbane+5vKciLgJUe9l.jpg)
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/mason-cox-of-the-magpies-and-umpire-ray-chamberlain-shake-hands-in-a-picture-id950964498?s=612x612)
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/d0c97d8aa1ff7ef5a037df91b8e3a029?width=650)
Rules are rules AFL. Can't intentionally touch an umpire.
On Wednesday night, Geelong superstar and AFL Players' Association president Patrick Dangerfield labelled the Tribunal's decision to clear Ed Curnow of intentional umpire contact "farcical" in the wake of Cats spearhead Tom Hawkins' one-match suspension on the same charge.
Thanks Danger and good on you for looking after your fellow player in your role as pres of the players association and now defacto tribunal advisor.....
Speechless that the AFLPA President would throw a player under a bus like that. But, then, Dangerfield really is all about Dangerfield. I'd expect nothing less from such an egocentric individual. It is strongly rumoured that when Dangerfield is making love to his partner he is imagining jerking off... ;D
On Wednesday night, Geelong superstar and AFL Players' Association president Patrick Dangerfield labelled the Tribunal's decision to clear Ed Curnow of intentional umpire contact "farcical" in the wake of Cats spearhead Tom Hawkins' one-match suspension on the same charge.
Thanks Danger and good on you for looking after your fellow player in your role as pres of the players association and now defacto tribunal advisor.....
Danger is working hard to earn his place in The Grand Order of Flogs.
Danger is working hard to earn his place in The Grand Order of Flogs.
I like Danger, but he's pushing his luck in recent times. Just let your footy do the talking and leave the gobbing off for your post football media career.
This series of events reminds me of the mating rituals of a female black widow spider. They mate then eat their partner.....
Well at least Ed will know from all this who he can trust and who he can't trust, ditto Charlie.
I like Danger, but he's pushing his luck in recent times. Just let your footy do the talking and leave the gobbing off for your post football media career.
I reckon he just doesn't like Ed. What are the chances that Ed Curnow has played on him in the past and been a right royal pest about it?
Disgraceful decision that totally ignored the AFL's own rules for how a successful appeal should be assessed....
"Hocking said the AFL had appealed both of the financial sanctions on the grounds that:
* no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it
* the sanction imposed was manifestly inadequate."
As a matter of law, I would presume that both elements are necessary, not either.
As to the first requirement, well it appears the Appeal Board (or whatever they're coined) simply ignored this entirely - and it is strongly refuted by the May decision, let alone common sense.
The second arm - was it "manifestly inadequate"? Well, hard to argue that one too in the light of the May decision (which I gather the Appeals Board managed to ignore entirely too) and in light of countless other incidents of contact that were never even taken to the Tribunal.
Conclusion? Carp decision with no legal or administrative basis.
I can only presume given CFC's lame response, they were spoken to ahead of time and were told to take it on the chin for whatever reason.
I reckon he just doesn't like Ed. What are the chances that Ed Curnow has played on him in the past and been a right royal pest about it?
Sooo, Danger is just being Catty? ;)
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-17/suns-ready-to-atone-for-embarrassing-china-debut (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-17/suns-ready-to-atone-for-embarrassing-china-debut)
look who's the poster boy for the China game!!
Sooo, Danger is just being Catty? ;)
Perhaps he just sees Ed as a Danger to the Field umpires?
I reckon he just doesn't like Ed. What are the chances that Ed Curnow has played on him in the past and been a right royal pest about it?
Would have been teamates at one point wouldn't they?
Would have been teamates at one point wouldn't they?
Have you got along with every teammate you ever had?
I like Danger, but he's pushing his luck in recent times. Just let your footy do the talking and leave the gobbing off for your post football media career.
Yep. A damn good footballer, but, as a man, a grub. >:(
Perhaps he just sees Ed as a Danger to the Field umpires?
:))
Got himself into quite a Paddy over it in fact.
:))
Got himself into quite a Paddy over it in fact.
Wonder if it was Nic Nat, would Paddy still go 'whack'?
i put in a comment on The Age's Peter Ryan's article yesterday - pointing out that the AFL hadn't been consistent at all (despite Ryan's assertion to the contrary) in recent weeks and how had everyone suddenly gone quiet, dead quiet, on the May incident.
Just checked then - hasn't been allowed up!
Not surprised at all by that
On Wednesday night, Geelong superstar and AFL Players' Association president Patrick Dangerfield labelled the Tribunal's decision to clear Ed Curnow of intentional umpire contact "farcical" in the wake of Cats spearhead Tom Hawkins' one-match suspension on the same charge.
Thanks Danger and good on you for looking after your fellow player in your role as pres of the players association and now defacto tribunal advisor.....
I wonder if Danger played for Carlton instead of Geelong if he still thought only fining the Curnows was farcical. Hmmm, I wonder!!
Flog.
Dangerfield should be made to stand down....no place to comment givenhis position.
Dangerfield should be made to stand down....no place to comment givenhis position.
Exactly. Its what makes Juddy head and shoulders above the rest IMO. Brilliant footballer but also an astute, well spoken and unbiased football person. As a Carlton person, he could have cut loose on TFS tonight. Instead, he was measured, rational and played a straight bat. Danger is a great footballer but thats about it.
On whether Patrick Dangerfield should be making comment on the tribunal findings...
Carlton football boss Andrew McKay: “I don’t think I should comment on that, and neither should Patrick.”
5:03 PM - 17 May 2018
I like that from McKay, a very measured & controlled way of basically telling Dangerfield to STFU. A bit more of that from certain other high placed officials would be good.
Have you got along with every teammate you ever had?
Kind of the point I was trying to make.
Makes it even more of a disgrace that he had anything to say about it!
Chris Scott just on SEN. Reckons none of the touching incidents were worthy of suspension only maybe fines. Stated that there was low level contact between player and umps all the time which is not worthy of serious scrutiny. Deliberate and forceful contact is obviously a no no.
Oh my, a Scott discussing AFL decisions, gees that's strange. Wonder when he gets a "please explain"?
Sorry, my bad, the Scott's can say whatever they like, just like Clarkson ET AL.
Chris Scott just on SEN. Reckons none of the touching incidents were worthy of suspension only maybe fines. Stated that there was low level contact between player and umps all the time which is not worthy of serious scrutiny. Deliberate and forceful contact is obviously a no no.
He's actually right in what he says though ;)
Free +50 would be sufficient for any of those in my opinion.
He's actually right in what he says though ;)
Free +50 would be sufficient for any of those in my opinion.
Not a great fan of the Scotts myself but I don't have a problem with what CS is saying here either, or your proposal for that matter Lods. IMO the umps should also exercise all care to keep out of the way of players.
Not a great fan of the Scotts myself but I don't have a problem with what CS is saying here either, or your proposal for that matter Lods. IMO the umps should also exercise all care to keep out of the way of players.
I mentioned it earlier on...
One of the major concerns is the message it sends to the kids if players get away with touching umpires.
Now we cant fine kids ....but a free +50 would be a big penalty for them and they'd think twice about doing it.
Naturally, at any level, if there is malice or aggression, throw the book at them.
But there was no malice or aggression in any of those over the last week...a bit of a hissy by Hawkins maybe, but not worth games.
He's actually right in what he says though ;)
Free +50 would be sufficient for any of those in my opinion.
Not a great fan of the Scotts myself but I don't have a problem with what CS is saying here either, or your proposal for that matter Lods. IMO the umps should also exercise all care to keep out of the way of players.
Agree with both gents. The Scott boys might be irritating, but they know how to work the system, and I hope Bolts is paying attention.
I mentioned it earlier on...
One of the major concerns is the message it sends to the kids if players get away with touching umpires.
Now we cant fine kids ....but a free +50 would be a big penalty for them and they'd think twice about doing it.
Naturally, at any level, if there is malice or aggression, throw the book at them.
But there was no malice or aggression in any of those over the last week...a bit of a hissy by Hawkins maybe, but not worth games.
Apologies - missed that Lods. Tbh, I haven't been following this topic that closely on here as I find a lot of the wrangling about the tribunal etc etc as not that interesting, especially the more tiggy-touchwood aspects.
No need to apologise cookie..
Like Paul...I think there has been a massive over-reaction to this whole thing.
With the modern game there is going to be umpire contact.
But there is incidental,non-aggressive contact that should be treated with a minor penalty
A 50+ free is more than adequate and also totally applicable to minor leagues.
Yes..umpires must be protected, and if the acts are aggressive they should attract severe penalties.
But none of the indiscretions of the last two weeks deserve that level of penalty.
The fines are right, they must protect umps at lower levels were any "threshold of contact" is not measurable or police-able!
Scott's comments are ignorant of the situations where you can have teenagers or girls umpiring men as part of a suburban or regional match day panel. No level of contact is acceptable, the AFL is the standard bearer!
I have no problem with the AFL fines or bans.
I have a huge problem with Scott, Dangerfield and the AFL media speaking out because their motives are self-indulgent and not pure! They made the issue all about them when in fact there is a much bigger picture!
I'd assert if some lowly Geelong player had come out and made those Dangfield comments the media would have keelhauled them!