Skip to main content
Topic: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal (Read 30855 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #255

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.

Life is pain....... anyone who says differently is selling something.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #256
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!
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #257
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.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #258
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.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #259
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.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #260
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.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #261
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.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #262
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.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #263
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.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #264
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.

 

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #265
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!
The Force Awakens!