Curnows' Umpire Contact - why the different punishment?

[The Old Dark Navy's]

In most cases I would agree with you, however in this instance I think that the AFL had/have a perfect chance to set this is stone so that it is really clear to everyone. Touching/contact to an umpire is a no go zone no matter what. You touch an umpire and you get a week minimum depending on the severity of it. The incidental contact where players accidentally run in to the umpire is a different issue IMO. When it's a clear cut case such as these last 4, then I think a week for each and be done with it. Super clear to all and sundry - can absolutely be black and white in these umpire contact cases IMO.

If it were black and white I don't think you will be seeing it in the future and it sends the right signals to the kids and lower leagues.

I just don't see the lower leagues thinking it is okay to aggressively touch an umpire based on these decisions. It's a bridge too far for me. Anybody that is going to disrespect an umpire physically isn't going to suddenly remember 'oh yeah, I can't touch you'.

It's another one of those slippery slope scenarios that probably holds little weight IMO.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That's nothing, you should see what they get up to in the showers.

Yeah it's open to joking but realistically, is that what we want to stamp out of the game with suspensions?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So in summary it was a good post but you disagree completely with it?

Not really.

I know it's hard for most forum folk to comprehend the concept, but I acknowledge it as a good post that was well articulated and a good point raised - however I don't entirely agree with it.

I agree that the world is not black and white, and I agree that it seems unfair to group each of the examples given with the same punishment, even though the circumstances are different. But in the case of touching umpires, I think you have to.

There can't be wriggle room, and it can't be open to interpretation.

It's too serious.

 

[firefighter]

is that what we want to stamp out of the game with suspensions?

Not sure about a suspension but yeah that needs to be stamped out for sure.

 

[These 4 Walls]

Good post.

However although the world is not black and white, in some instances you have to make black and white rules to stop people taking advantage of situations.

Personally, I think umpire contact is one of them.

Horses for courses, though appreciate respectful disagreement.

The black and white of it should be that umpires must be respected, not that umpires must be avoided.

I am not sure anyone is taking advantage of umpire conduct, though if there are concerns around growing incidents with umpires then putting the onus on respect for umpires is more likely to help that than making them an untouchable deity.

Having the same reporting process though the entire tribunal element being the umpire outlining if they felt threatened/disrespected if the contact was intentional.

If we are saying that is based around respect for umpires, we can respect them enough to believe they will approach that fairly & honestly.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not sure about a suspension but yeah that needs to be stamped out for sure.

So a fine?

 

[WeAreGeelong]

I just don't see the lower leagues thinking it is okay to aggressively touch an umpire based on these decisions. It's a bridge too far for me. Anybody that is going to disrespect an umpire physically isn't going to suddenly remember 'oh yeah, I can't touch you'.

It's another one of those slippery slope scenarios that probably holds little weight IMO.

I'm not sure they would think that it's ok to aggressively touch an umpire either, but if it's really clear and they all get a week, then it's pretty obvious to all and sundry where players stand in this instance. I'm not saying the lack of a suspension will give the green light to go and aggressively touch an umpire - I'm saying that suspending them will send a clear message and it will most likely reduce these type of instances amongst all ranks, which can only be a good thing IMO. The AFL had the prefect opportunity to set this straight and they stuffed it up completely.

 

[Suns of Anarchy]

Hocking hasn't taken long to show his true colours. Jon Anderson, Duncan, Dangerfield & Scott all carry on in the media and Hocking swiftly overturns the tribunal decision.
Next he'll give you 2 extra home games at your ghetto and a first round pick compo for Motlop. Oh, too late.

 

[STPer18]

Hocking hasn't taken long to show his true colours. Jon Anderson, Duncan, Dangerfield & Scott all carry on in the media and Hocking swiftly overturns the tribunal decision.
Next he'll give you 2 extra home games at your ghetto and a first round pick compo for Motlop. Oh, too late.

So if Hocking was so keen to favour Geelong, why wouldn't he just clear Hawkins in the first place? Not to mention citing Selwood for punching grass against Port. Swing and a miss unfortunately, try again.

 

[WeAreGeelong]

Where do you stop though??

I think the Gregson one should get a week also. It's too wishy washy at the moment. Make it nice and clear that it's a week minimum and I'm pretty sure Gregson wouldn't have touched the umpire. They will learn pretty quickly I'm tipping if it's clear cut. Isn't that what we all want - consistency and clear rules?

Edit - I'd probably need to see the Gregson one with video rather than a still as it is possible that the umpire was backing into him and if that is the case it's pretty hard to jump out of the way. Accidental is pretty easy to work out and if that was the case with Gregson, then it shouldn't get a week - just to clarify my position.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Ed needs a week off for consistency, Charlie needs a fine for consistency.

As I see it, Eds is similar to Hawkins, but intentional nonetheless. Charlie's is more careless and has more in common with the May decision which the AFL is not appealing.

Going forward, I believe these matters should only be brought to the tribunal through an umpires match day report. If the umpire feels threatened or that it's an issue - match day report the player. If the umpire has no issue....all is fine and dandy.

The last thing the sport needs is AFL media scouring every tape for every potential contact between a player and umpire.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Yeah, how dare he want all players treated equally.

That's nothing, you should see what they get up to in the showers.

#freekickhawthorn​

His role in the PA is to look out for the welfare of all players, not just the ones that are his teammates.
His problem is with the AFL, not the Curnows. If he honestly thinks that the Curnows should get a week (I don’t think he does), then he should think that any player who touches an umpire should get a week. Gregson, Cripps and all the others who copped fines or miraculously escaped scrutiny.
If he thinks Hawkins was hard done by and therefore the Curnows as well, then he should stand up for the Curnows while backing his teammate.

 

[These 4 Walls]

I think the Gregson one should get a week also. It's too wishy washy at the moment. Make it nice and clear that it's a week minimum and I'm pretty sure Gregson wouldn't have touched the umpire. They will learn pretty quickly I'm tipping if it's clear cut. Isn't that what we all want - consistency and clear rules?

And to stop people stepping over the line with sledging, we will get them to stop talking to one another all together. They will learn pretty quickly I'm tipping if it's clear cut. (I apologise for taking a somewhat mocking approach to your response, it was just the alternative view that best fitted that retort)

It is a sport for professional athletes, officiated by those that are the best in the world at it.

We seem so much keener to be outraged & spoon fed than we are to be educated and open minded.

Let them come up with rules that have appropriate complexity for the best in the world doing what they are doing and and show interest in wanting to learn & understand them.

Right now the dumbing down is led by the public's confusion at things not being cookie cutter clear, then the media whip up outrage and force the games hand- to be as simple as black & white...before they realise things aren't black and white and more outrage ensues.

 

[Coops93]

Good post.

However although the world is not black and white, in some instances you have to make black and white rules to stop people taking advantage of situations.

Personally, I think umpire contact is one of them.

But even black and white rules can still send conflicting messages.

Take Charlies for an example. In his mind he's stopping a person from getting involved in a melee, something the AFL vehemently wants players to avoid as it's a bad image. If that person is a player the AFL would commend Charlie for his actions. Attempting to diffuse a combustible situation is exactly what they want a player to do.

However, in this situation unfortunately unbeknownst to Charlie it's an umpire. He doesn't realise this as he was focussed on the melee, but thought it best another person not get involved. That doesn't matter, all umpire contact must result in a ban therefore he's gone. Despite him doing what the AFL would recommend he do in that situation.

He does what the AFL recommends he do in that situation but happens to hold back the wrong guy so he has to be suspended. End of story. How's that fair?

 

[telsor]

My feeling is that any contact with an umpire, intentional or not, should be a mandatory suspension.
One week for the lowest end of the scale etc.
Pretty simple solution.

Simple analogy....you're out at a bar with your sister...a sleazy guy hit on her and got told to go away. When is contact allowed between them now?

Same rules apply for players touching umpires.

1) Genuine accidents. Few, but they do happen...Player still gets a fine because he should be looking out for/avoiding the ump (if the contact is significant, more than a fine is possible).
2) Umpire allows it. Again, rare (and I'd be telling the umps to never allow it). For consistency's sake, I'd still take it to the MRO and require the ump to vouch for the contact being OK.
3) When the ump touches the player. (and again, I'd be telling the umps to never do this).

Anything else gets at least a week.

 

[WeAreGeelong]

And to stop people stepping over the line with sledging, we will get them to stop talking to one another all together. They will learn pretty quickly I'm tipping if it's clear cut. (I apologise for taking a somewhat mocking approach to your response, it was just the alternative view that best fitted that retort)

It is a sport for professional athletes, officiated by those that are the best in the world at it.

We seem so much keener to be outraged & spoon fed than we are to be educated and open minded.

Let them come up with rules that have appropriate complexity for the best in the world doing what they are doing and and show interest in wanting to learn & understand them.

Right now the dumbing down is led by the public's confusion at things not being cookie cutter clear, then the media whip up outrage and force the games hand- to be as simple as black & white...before they realise things aren't black and white and more outrage ensues.

Big difference between sledging and touching umpires IMO. I think in all sports the umpires should be absolutely untouchable, unless accidental in such a fast game like AFL (I don't even really think there should be fines for those, but that's another topic). That's really all I'm saying. Make it clear cut and everyone knows where we stand, not this wishy washy approach we currently have.

 

[firefighter]

If he thinks Hawkins was hard done by

Read what he said, I don't think you comprehend.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

article on afl site today: 'cats should be bleeding on curnows'

i'm guessing they're still finalizing the 'blues should be bleeding on may' article

 

[PieLebo87]

But Charlie curnows at the very least was clearly not of malicious intent...it literally looks like a protective motion since a melee was happening and lamb was being dragged closer to the umpire. It was the softest of touches.

Eds one is more 50/50 as his was an actual push. Although once again the umps statement was he did not feel threatened or the act was malicious and has no issues with it.

If that's the afls reasoning for not appealing may they definitely should not be appealing Charlie's.

I don’t know. Trying to understand the AFL is like trying to understand women.

 

[Reppie]

Both should cop a week off for stupidity alone after last weeks events as should May.
And i had no problem with Hawkins suspension after the jumper punch incident either for the same reason.
But unfortunately the morons in charge of the game couldn't run a bath let alone a national competition.

 

[M_I_G]

people saying Hawkins and Ed Curnow incidents are the same
dont get me wrong, fuming he touched an ump, but very different fellas

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Horses for courses, though appreciate respectful disagreement.

The black and white of it should be that umpires must be respected, not that umpires must be avoided.

I am not sure anyone is taking advantage of umpire conduct, though if there are concerns around growing incidents with umpires then putting the onus on respect for umpires is more likely to help that than making them an untouchable deity.

Having the same reporting process though the entire tribunal element being the umpire outlining if they felt threatened/disrespected if the contact was intentional.

If we are saying that is based around respect for umpires, we can respect them enough to believe they will approach that fairly & honestly.

This.

 

[Gazza Greatness]

It was at the tribunal that the AFL QC stated as such:

Then a week later May and both Curnows weren't faced with the same ultimatum, so they were free to argue their case and avoided the same penalty. Surely all of them should have been faced with the extra loading, or none of them. They basically forced Geelong and Hawkins into accepting the one-week penalty as there was no way we'd have argued knowing we were risking an increased penalty, especially after the commentary surrounding it during the weekend. The AFL then proudly accept the plaudits for their stance on 'umpire respect', then go weak when three more cases are found the very next week.

Had the AFL not gotten all high and mighty and twisted Geelong's arm into accepting a deal to push their agenda, none of this mess would have happened. We'd have had the same chance afforded to the other two teams to argue a case, whether that clears Tom or not no one would know, but you can't be allowing some teams a free pop, while others are used as scapegoats, all in the space of a single fortnight.

Your explanation of events perfectly summarises in total what occurred or what should have occurred. A complete turn around of events as you say all in the space of a fortnight and the immoral justice that the AFL can only blame themselves but as per usual WON'T. The argument is not whether Tom Hawkins should have been suspended or fined but rather the Geelong FC not been threatened by AFL with a two match penalty if they decided to challenge the charge then failed. If Tomahawks preceeding followed normal justice as per with other three players without AFL interference then there would be no controversy to speak of, if the AFL then decided to challenge then so be it, that is their entitlement.

 

[Whiskers]

Your explanation of events perfectly summarises in total what occurred or what should have occurred. A complete turn around of events as you say all in the space of a fortnight and the immoral justice that the AFL can only blame themselves but as per usual WON'T. The argument is not whether Tom Hawkins should have been suspended or fined but rather the Geelong FC not been threatened by AFL with a two match penalty if they decided to challenge the charge then failed. If Tomahawks preceeding followed normal justice as per with other three players without AFL interference then there would be no controversy to speak of, if the AFL then decided to challenge then so be it, that is their entitlement.

‘Oath
The last point is a very good point, if the AFL aren’t happy with the Hawkins suspension than they could appeal it but don’t just threaten him with 2.

 

[master bate]

It was at the tribunal that the AFL QC stated as such:

Then a week later May and both Curnows weren't faced with the same ultimatum, so they were free to argue their case and avoided the same penalty. Surely all of them should have been faced with the extra loading, or none of them. They basically forced Geelong and Hawkins into accepting the one-week penalty as there was no way we'd have argued knowing we were risking an increased penalty, especially after the commentary surrounding it during the weekend. The AFL then proudly accept the plaudits for their stance on 'umpire respect', then go weak when three more cases are found the very next week.

Had the AFL not gotten all high and mighty and twisted Geelong's arm into accepting a deal to push their agenda, none of this mess would have happened. We'd have had the same chance afforded to the other two teams to argue a case, whether that clears Tom or not no one would know, but you can't be allowing some teams a free pop, while others are used as scapegoats, all in the space of a single fortnight.

Welcome to the world of plea bargaining.

Had he pleaded guilty to careless conduct but fought the penalty he still could've argued for 1 week in front of the jury. Gleason would've argued for 2 weeks. I'd be willing to bet pretty heavily the jury would've stuck with 1 week.

Geelong took the plea deal. They got to play the 'for the good of the game card' and that's there bad luck.

I think the question is why the AFL can't use the same prosecutor for all cases. It certainly seems that's an error they've been regretting.

Then again, I also think it was gutless that the MRP didn't come out and grade the incidents and give fines to May and C Curnow and offer E Curnow a week and actually set the tone for any hearings. I know some but not all people agree with me but personally I think there's 2 apples and 2 oranges involved here.