Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal (Read 31858 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #210 –
The AFL gets its pound of flesh!  >:D
Hocking maintains the tradition...........
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #211 –
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.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #212 –
Quote from: kruddler on
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.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #213 –
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
 

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #214 –
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.
The only thing in this world worth more than a hill of beans is the Carlton Football Club.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #215 –
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.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #217 –
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. 

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #218 –
Ed gets a week - Whateley does cartwheels.

Charlie fine only - Whateley cries, then head explodes.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #219 –
Quote from: blue4life on
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.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #220 –
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.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #221 –
Quote from: PaulP on
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.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #223 –
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! ::)
2024... Moir of the same to come

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #224 –
Quote from: Lods on
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.