SBYM
Fish, chips, cup o' tea, Mary @#? Poppins. London!
Is it Christmas? Didn't see that coming.
Curnows' Umpire Contact - why the different punishment?
- Thread starter Boxhead_31
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Good decisions in the end. Nothing in the Charlie report and as pointed out above, Ed had respected the umpires decision and after the slight brush of the umpire, he said he didn't feel threatened.
Surprised Ed got off. Really think he should’ve got a week. Charlie’s was the correct decision. I can see why both were viewed differently to Hawkins though.
SBYM
Fish, chips, cup o' tea, Mary @#? Poppins. London!
I'd be well pissed off too, but I reckon you're missing the mark with bias/corruption.
They're just completely incompetent.
- Banned
- #155
Has anyone seen the sheed incident that Carlton used as a precedence? I can't see it anywhere.
Listening to SEN this morning complaining about the differences in outcome yet none mention Carlton defence and the case they used. Instead easy to just out 2 and 2 together and get 5. Also geelong didn't challenge the grading.
AFL created this by giving Hawkins a 1 week ban because an umpire overreacted to being touched by yelling 'don't touch me'
Umpires in these 3 cases said they didn't realise a player had touched them or thought nothing of it.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Listening to SEN this morning complaining about the differences in outcome yet none mention Carlton defence and the case they used. Instead easy to just out 2 and 2 together and get 5. Also geelong didn't challenge the grading.
AFL created this by giving Hawkins a 1 week ban because an umpire overreacted to being touched by yelling 'don't touch me'
Umpires in these 3 cases said they didn't realise a player had touched them or thought nothing of it.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Beyond laughable
Hirsty23
Team Captain
- Apr 26, 2015
- 477
- 1,280
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Geelong have every right to be furious with the MRP's findings this week. Charlie rightfully got off but Ed Curnow and also Sam May should have gone. Crazy thing is, it's not that hard a job is it? Set a precedent, be consistent with it and people won't be so outraged every week.
- Sep 3, 2011
- 7,891
- 16,941
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I didn't actually know about Essendon. I will look that up.
- Sep 3, 2011
- 7,891
- 16,941
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Don't be like that, don't rise to the bait. You're better than that!
- Apr 3, 2006
- 33,500
- 11,912
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Dom Sheed apparently?
Geelong were made to know that if Hawkins didn't plead guilty, they would try and give Hawkins 2 weeks.
This ultimatum was never delivered to Carlton. They had nothing to fear by giving it a crack.
Don't see how this would be at all relevant. It's clear what happened, regardless of what self-serving 'I don't remember doing it' nonsense came from the players. It is counter to the message of the previous week - don't touch the umpires. Not a good look. What a load of horseshit.
One day this system will produce a straw that breaks the camel, a proper court will get involved and expose this kangaroo crap once and for all.
I don't understand the salt on this one.
Charlie Curnow and May deserved nothing more than fines, Ed's was more serious but again pretty minor in the scheme of things - thought he would get a week but satsified with a fine.
In my view the Hawkins incident was far worse, he walked towards the umpire and reached out and hit his hand away while chucking a wobbly over deliberately kneeing someone in the butt - there was never a chance he was getting off that.
Charlie Curnow and May deserved nothing more than fines, Ed's was more serious but again pretty minor in the scheme of things - thought he would get a week but satsified with a fine.
In my view the Hawkins incident was far worse, he walked towards the umpire and reached out and hit his hand away while chucking a wobbly over deliberately kneeing someone in the butt - there was never a chance he was getting off that.
- Apr 3, 2006
- 33,500
- 11,912
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Is this how you want the tribunal to be run? Vague feelings and notions?
- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,078
- 10,429
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
What a load of bollocks. If that is true then Hawkins should've received 20 weeks! The umpire made no complaint, this decision to suspend Hawkins was all due to the mass hysteria perpetrated by insane Fox footy commentator Paul Roos. 11 players have been fined for umpire contact in the past three weeks with only one receiving the bizarre commentary "bad look for the game spiel". Hawkins did nothing, the umpire did nothing on the day either. The Curnow's did nothing, i see no suspensions for any of these blokes yet here we are after setting the precedent the week before right back to square one. This MRO fiasco must stop.
May was remonstrating with the Umpire, how does he get off that one? Ed Curnow pushes his hand into the chest of the Umpire? Hawkins cops a week for a finger touch? WTF is going on?
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Talk about gross exaggeration. So Hawkins walked towards the umpire?!? How many steps did he take, or was it not the case the umpire invaded his space? Hawkins simply turned around. In any case that is immaterial. The Ed Curnow & Hawkins incidents were both intentional but innocuous incidents. Both deserved fines.
What is relevant is that the AFL's hard line stance on "no physical contact with umpires" lasted all of one week.
What is more disturbing is that the Tribunal has admitted it told Geelong Hawkins would be rubbed out for 2 weeks if it contested the charge. Yet, the Tribunal/AFL mad no such threat this week. How do you explain that?
I think there were clear differences in the cases but that it why you just have to have a blanket no touching the umpire ever policy. That way it takes away subjective assessments of intent.
- Mar 13, 2006
- 4,053
- 3,987
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Orlando Magic
Being reported the AFL is considering challenging the verdicts.
Fair enough too as the Ed Curnow decision in particular is mind boggling.
Fair enough too as the Ed Curnow decision in particular is mind boggling.
AlecDuncan
Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer Sponsor 2016
Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer Sponsor 2015
Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer Sponsor 2014
Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer Sponsor 2013
Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer 2012 Player Sponsor
Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer 2011 Player Sponsor
Carlton Blues - Matthew Kreuzer 2010 Player Sponsor
The lesson is: If you don't fight, you lose.
- Jul 20, 2002
- 18,184
- 10,243
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Blyth Spartans, Dallas Cowboys
Answer - they don't like Hawkins or Geelong and they want Carlton to be competitive. You could see the fix was in when Steven May got off. Although this was probably the right decision it was obvious that the tribunal were going to use it to justify letting the Curnows off. How could Hawkins prod into the umpires body be any less than Hawkins action? Just wait till there is umpire contact in a game that doesn't involve one of the AFL's dears.
If you look at all four umpire contact incidents recently i think that slap of the wrist by Hawkins while staring dead set at the ump is clearly the most aggressive and forceful. The rest are nothings. Ed's one came close but even that was a meh - a sensual I can feel your heartbeat moment with Nathan Williamson.
I'm 'shocked' by the amount of people 'shocked' at the common sense decisions made. The umpires must be sitting back and laughing at this overblown joke.
I'm 'shocked' by the amount of people 'shocked' at the common sense decisions made. The umpires must be sitting back and laughing at this overblown joke.
go watch the hawkins clip again. he didnt hit the hand. it was barely a touch. he also wasnt moving towards the ump, unlike may, the ump was moving towards hawkins.
you have one weird definition of a slap on the wrist.
what crap. hawkins was told he would get 2 weeks if he didnt plead guilty. geelong were not planning on pleading guilty until they were told this.
So they are appealing both Curnow decisions. Why appeal Charlie, but not Steven May?
I could understand appealing Ed’s, but if you appealed Charlie’s then you have to apppeal May’s as well for mine.
I could understand appealing Ed’s, but if you appealed Charlie’s then you have to apppeal May’s as well for mine.
they want may to play in china and gc to avoid a smashing
Similar threads
- Poll
