Curnows' Umpire Contact - why the different punishment?

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Was this intentional contact? Do people really want the decision to be between intentional and careless or should commonsense prevail?

 

[JyeDye]

Reckon Ed should go due to the precedent set by Hawkins, but really don't understand what Charlie's is about. Literally just put his hand out wasn't even looking at the ump.

 

[F_therest]

Thing is these slight touches happen all the time.

It's just that Hawkins incident has drawn attention to it and fox footy kept showing replays of the curnows touching the umps, which were then discussed on every footy show.

As we see now on twitter, there is vision of gregson touching an umps arm but wasn't captured.

FFS the two umpires involved didn't think it was a big deal and had no issues with it...one couldn't even remember it happened thats how nothing this is...completely blown out of proportion by constant close up replays and certain journalists on a crusade.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So you think that May should have been pinged?

Unfortunately yes.

 

[dazbroncos]

Was this intentional contact? Do people really want the decision to be between intentional and careless or should commonsense prevail?

View attachment 498088

yeah but Hodgey's a good bloke

and good blokes dont do bad things

Go Catters

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

yeah but Hodgey's a good bloke

and good blokes dont do bad things

Go Catters

I expected that response.

Seriously though, if intentional contact is the criteria this is gone. It's not black and white and shouldn't be one size fits all.

 

[Bluelegs]

The Charlie curnow contact, I suspect happens every game.

Ed, May, and Hawkins not so much

I haven't seen any examples of that but I could certainly accept that Charlie's was unintentional. I think it's line-ball as he did touch the umpire twice in the incident.

May I think was completely unintentional was trying to argue the point and bumped into the umpire.

I don't know how Ed's incident could be seen as anything other than intentional.

 

[CheapCharlie]

May was merely clumsy in his re-enactment of whatever umpiring decision he was aggrieved about . There was no intention to touch the umpire.

Charlie quite fairly claims he didnt realise it was an umpire he touched when he put his arm out...merely an instinctive reaction to protect space.

Only Ed's chest push is remotely close to deliberate like Hawkins the week prior.

I expect the appeal to be successful for Ed Curnow but not for Charlie.

Ed should have been a definite one week

Charlie says he didn't know but I find it difficult to beleive

 

[Acinath]

How can it be deliberate contact, but accidental or not?

I think the biggest learning from this is that people think things are far simpler than they are. Everything has complexities, FWIW I think the current system is the correct one, though would take away the AFL's ability to appeal.

If they think the tribunal has reached an outcome different from their preference, they can amend the rules that the tribunal uses to make judgements at the end of each season.

Accidentally running into an umpire that may not be in your peripheral vision is very different to extend your arm and placing it on them.

Didn’t think I would have to make that clear, but hey, you proved my original point wrong. Apparently it really is that hard for people to understand the difference.

 

[Fabab]

AFL are a joke,no mention of May. I reckon they will give Ed more than Charlie.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Charlie says he didn't know but I find it difficult to beleive

Maybe so but if he didn’t look directly at the umpire he has a case. Hard to prove it was intentional.

 

[Spacedog]

If Charlie curnow gets a week it’ll be the worst suspension I can remember. He barely touched the umpires arm and you could reasonably argue he thought it was an opponent at first. None of these umpire touching incidents deserve weeks. At best they are fines if the AFL wants to crack down on it.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Why? They are not the same.

Even if you could argue they were all intended touches, Hawkins was clearly more malicious than both curnows...he was arguing with the umpire. That should mean something.

Force of both Curnow incidents was much more than the Hawkins incident

 

[Spacedog]

Two things:

1) This isn't about the AFL and umpires - it's about junior and local level footy and creating a precedent for them. You simply can't have players thinking it is even remotely acceptable to touch umpires at junior and suburban level. You just can't.
Unfortunately some 'soft' ones in the AFL where no malice was intended nor any harm done need to be punished quite harshly to ensure that dickheads in local comps don't start thinking umpire contact is a blurred line that is open to interpretation.

2) The AFL should just allow precedents. It's clearly the simplest and most logical option for the tribunal. But they don't.
Equally as unfortunate is that we all know the reasons why they don't - because it removes their ability to rig certain decisions when it suits them.

I disagree with the first point. The afl shouldn’t have to set examples for local or junior leagues. Those leagues have their own rules and its pretty common sense that umpire contact is not allowed. If it starts happening the local leagues can deal with it themselves. Its like saying movies cant show any violence because it sets a bad example for kids.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Force of both Curnow incidents was much more than the Hawkins incident

Force is irrelevant. Maliciousness is in the intent.

Intention is everything.

Hawkins and E Curnow....intentional. Suspension.
May and C Curnow......not intentional. Fine or not guilty.

 

[STPer18]

If Charlie curnow gets a week it’ll be the worst suspension I can remember. He barely touched the umpires arm and you could reasonably argue he thought it was an opponent at first. None of these umpire touching incidents deserve weeks. At best they are fines if the AFL wants to crack down on it.

Too late, Hawkins has already missed a match because of it. Need to show some consistency now, they were more than happy to accept all the plaudits from the media regarding their 'umpire respect' during the week.

 

[Spacedog]

Too late, Hawkins has already missed a match because of it. Need to show some consistency now, they were more than happy to accept all the plaudits from the media regarding their 'umpire respect' during the week.

So because they messed one decision up they should mess up more? If they want consistency steven may should be at the tribunal as well.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Too late, Hawkins has already missed a match because of it. Need to show some consistency now, they were more than happy to accept all the plaudits from the media regarding their 'umpire respect' during the week.

Its quite easy to show consistency. All you need to do is recognise the difference between a deliberate and an accidental/incidental act.

The AFL clearly doesnt know the difference either because they are appealling both Curnow penalties where in reality they only shoudl be challenging one.

 

[flamethrower]

Why didn't the afl appeal the joke of a decision to suspend Nic nat ?

The AFL only appeal a decision if they well the penalty was too light. It is up to the club to appeal if they feel the penalty was excessive.

I can understand why the AFL has appealed the Ed Curnow decision, as he is either guilty of intentional unnecessary contact with an official resulting in a suspension, or he is not guilty. As he was looking at the umpire and pushed his arm towards him, it can't really be careless contact. The same as Tom Hawkins.

As for Charlie Curnow, he appeared to not intentionally touch the umpire - Charlie seemed to be trying to prevent extra players joining a melee by using his arm as a barrier, and contact to the umpire was incidental = careless contact and a fine. Not sure on what grounds his case is being appealed.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Force is irrelevant. Maliciousness is in the intent.

Intention is everything.

Hawkins and E Curnow....intentional. Suspension.
May and C Curnow......not intentional. Fine or not guilty.

They didn't intentionally make contact with an umpire is what you're suggesting?
Interesting given that both knew exactly where the umpire was before they made contact with them

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

They didn't intentionally make contact with an umpire is what you're suggesting?
Interesting given that both knew exactly where the umpire was before they made contact with them

Its what I'm suggesting. Intention is always something that needs to be estimated without actually being a mind reader. I'm surprised this is news to you. In every tribunal case ever where they say something was intentional, they are guessing what the thinking was.

May was just clumsy doing an interpretive dance whilst C Curnow threw a loose shepherding arm out to the umpire in his periphery to protect space and just got too close.

E Curnow and Hawkins deliberately made gestures directly at the umpire which contacted them and cannot be interpreted differently but intentional.

 

[STPer18]

So because they messed one decision up they should mess up more? If they want consistency steven may should be at the tribunal as well.

It wasn't a mess up last week though, it was deemed an appropriate penalty for a player intentionally touching the umpire. It's only being considered a mess up now in hindsight because all of a sudden players other than Tom Hawkins are facing bans. Most were in agreement that Hawkins deserved a week for stupidity + the poor message it sends local leagues, yet now that it's the Curnow boys and May, people aren't as happy to swallow that reasoning. Tough. Enough picking and choosing which players they use to send their convoluted messages.

 

[These 4 Walls]

Accidentally running into an umpire that may not be in your peripheral vision is very different to extend your arm and placing it on them.

Didn’t think I would have to make that clear, but hey, you proved my original point wrong. Apparently it really is that hard for people to understand the difference.

So you think that it is clear that deliberately accidental contact should be a week suspension? I would suggest that is anything but clear.

1-What about a player shaking an umpires hand? (It doesn't happen but would be nice & is certainly intentional)
2-What about putting your hand on an umpires back to let them know they are about to crash into you or to avoid worse contact? (see Gregson posted earlier in this thread)
3-What about trying to keep stop someone from going into a confrontational situation? (current C.Curnow case)
4-Player patting an umpire on the back after a healthy/friendly discussion (Luke Hodge does/did it semi often)
5-Player patting an umpire on the chest after a healthy/friendly discussion (current E.Curnow case)
6-Player intentionally resting against goal umpire to create space between defender before leading (JR8)
7-Player pushing an umpires hand away in discontent (recent Hawkins)
8-Forcefully grabbing an umpires arm to get attention/show dissatisfaction (happens a bit at local level, possibly H.Shaw recently too)
9-Player "shoving" an umpire in the chest (Diesel circa early/mid 90s)

Are all of those suspend-able? They are all intentional.

I umpired for a very short period of time and played for a bit longer. Points 2 & 4 happened very regularly and point 4s were generally my more favourable memories of wearing white and certainly came more into my game post umpiring.

I would say that
1,2 are okay
3,6 are fines
4,5 are on the borderline - Depends on the umpire feeling threatened/respected
7,8,9 - Suspendable

The world isn't black & white.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So you think that it is clear that deliberately accidental contact should be a week suspension? I would suggest that is anything but clear.

1-What about a player shaking an umpires hand? (It doesn't happen but would be nice & is certainly intentional)
2-What about putting your hand on an umpires back to let them know they are about to crash into you or to avoid worse contact? (see Gregson posted earlier in this thread)
3-What about trying to keep stop someone from going into a confrontational situation? (current C.Curnow case)
4-Player patting an umpire on the back after a healthy/friendly discussion (Luke Hodge does/did it semi often)
5-Player patting an umpire on the chest after a healthy/friendly discussion (current E.Curnow case)
6-Player intentionally resting against goal umpire to create space between defender before leading (JR8)
7-Player pushing an umpires hand away in discontent (recent Hawkins)
8-Forcefully grabbing an umpires arm to get attention/show dissatisfaction (happens a bit at local level, possibly H.Shaw recently too)
9-Player "shoving" an umpire in the chest (Diesel circa early/mid 90s)

Are all of those suspend-able? They are all intentional.

I umpired for a very short period of time and played for a bit longer. Points 2 & 4 happened very regularly and point 4s were generally my more favourable memories of wearing white and certainly game more into my game post umpiring.

I would say that
1,2 are okay
3,6 are fines
4,5 are on the borderline - Depends on the umpire feeling threatened/respected
7,8,9 - Suspendable

The world isn't black & white.

Under Bigfooty rules you are not allowed to like a post more than once.

 

[Brutalitops]

I could live with Ed's being appealed, or all three being appealed but why just the Curnows? I'll never understand the way the AFL adjudicate on these things.

When do we find out if the appeal is successful?