Dusty's brain fade

[Blueboys11]

From the Herald Sun

But Match review officer Michael Christian said the league had downgraded Martin’s verdict to careless umpire contact on the basis of a new interpretation which had been applied since the tribunal let-off May with a fine one month ago.

Since the May decision, Christian said players would only be hit with an intentional umpire contact sanction – and be sent to the tribunal for possible suspension - if their actions were either “demonstrative, aggressive, dismissive, disrespectful or forceful”.

What a joke. I’d say Martin ticks the aggressive, disrespectful and Forceful box

Not sure which box Curnow ticks

 

[G Mus]

From the Herald Sun

But Match review officer Michael Christian said the league had downgraded Martin’s verdict to careless umpire contact on the basis of a new interpretation which had been applied since the tribunal let-off May with a fine one month ago.

Since the May decision, Christian said players would only be hit with an intentional umpire contact sanction – and be sent to the tribunal for possible suspension - if their actions were either “demonstrative, aggressive, dismissive, disrespectful or forceful”.

What a joke. I’d say Martin ticks the aggressive, disrespectful and Forceful box

Not sure which box Curnow ticks

So they're changing rules midseason again? Amateur organisation

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Lol. Calm down son

I actually typed that calmly ....

 

[Xtreme]

The right decision

Dusty for back to back brownlows!

 

[DrMike]

No that's their new interpretation, when Curnow was done it was done solely on the basis that he touched him and it was intentional.

Also I would suggest Martin arguing with an umpire 30-40 seconds later, behind play, is pretty disrespectful, most people have a sook in the heat of the moment and move on or seek further clarification during the break but to still be going on about it 30 seconds later is silly.

Martin has asked umpires for clarification in the past and been completely respectful in accepting their interpretation. It's not sooking (IMO).

 

[DrMike]

The right decision

Dusty for back to back brownlows!

Doubt it. He's not playing good enough.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Personally don’t like it umpire contact, but precedent has been set.

Was instructional, was in regard to a free kick paid against him when he edged a player under the ball using his hip.

No different to the Steven May incident.

This should have ended the thread. Pretty clearly showing the umpire what happened. Not approved of, so he gets a fine. Hardly worth a suspension. Common sense prevails.

 

[Xtreme]

Doubt it. He's not playing good enough.

Dusty's average is still better than the rest of the competition

#backtobackdusty

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

From the Herald Sun

But Match review officer Michael Christian said the league had downgraded Martin’s verdict to careless umpire contact on the basis of a new interpretation which had been applied since the tribunal let-off May with a fine one month ago.

Since the May decision, Christian said players would only be hit with an intentional umpire contact sanction – and be sent to the tribunal for possible suspension - if their actions were either “demonstrative, aggressive, dismissive, disrespectful or forceful”.

What a joke. I’d say Martin ticks the aggressive, disrespectful and Forceful box

Not sure which box Curnow ticks

Curnow ticked the media outrage and lack of star power boxes.

 

[donbooger]

They relaxed the umpire contact rule, good some common sense.

Now they should go back and fix there greatest overeaction the keeping your feet while attacking the ball rule. Goodes gets caught for doing M Bison leg sweeps and now every player has to approach the ball slowly and carefully. It breaks my heart when that is called.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Ancient Tiger]

This should have ended the thread. Pretty clearly showing the umpire what happened. Not approved of, so he gets a fine. Hardly worth a suspension. Common sense prevails.

Exactly what I've been saying but the vultures here always want blood. If they don't get it, they moan and grown and say how unfair it is. Rather than just look at it in isolation and say it's not worth a week, they start comparing other decisions which are irrelevant.

 

[Mahlepi]

dusty and cotchin have had a dream run at mrp
tigers cant seriously deny this
have a look at the hawkins suspensions, and seriously afl bias is bullshit

Its the reason rules need to black and white, not based on the weekly interpretation of a word based on a.oxford b.wiki c. richmond

 

[Bostonian]

Rubbish. Check what Christian said.

I have eyes, I don't care what the muppet Christian said.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The interpretation they're going with is actually one I agree with (if you watch the AFL video). It makes me understand how they're applying it (to all players) and I think it's fair.

Curnow was dismissive/disrespectful. Suspension.
Hawkins was dismissive/aggressive. Suspension.
Rioli was none of those things. Fine.
Martin was none of those things. Fine.

How was Curnow dismissive or disrespectful? He had actually accepted the umpires call with no remonstrating. Besides that, the AFL counsel said that it didn't matter what his intent was, it didn't matter that the umpire had no issue with it, it only mattered whether it was intentional contact and they weren't satisfied that Curnow's eyes were on his opponent as opposed to the umpire.

Then along came Rioli and Christian gave them an out by judging it himself, obviously under instruction because getting suspended for that is a terrible look. He actually explained that Rioli wasn't looking at the umpire at the time of contact as though we are supposed to believe he swung his arm in a tapping motion at arse height randomly. Now they are applying at the intent of Martin as opposed to intentional or not, ignoring the remonstrating part, which they did for May as well and saying it is okay to lay hands on an umpire if you are trying to demonstrate why you are so pissed off with the decision.

Martin remonstrating is disrespectful, no matter how you slice it. The captain can approach an umpire at an appropriate time and ask about an interpretation. Players can't. Many cop 50 metre penalties for continuing to remonstrate.

The AFL are star gazing so they can appease the theatre goers.

 

[Blueboys11]

Exactly what I've been saying but the vultures here always want blood. If they don't get it, they moan and grown and say how unfair it is. Rather than just look at it in isolation and say it's not worth a week, they start comparing other decisions which are irrelevant.

THe vultures want consistency. Couldn’t care less about Martin. I’m peeved off with the AFL and there convoluted appeal against Curnow which directly contradicts there so called new guidelines as described by Christian today.

In that appeal they clearly stated all that mattered is was the contact intentional. That’s it. Even said the reason for the contact was irrelevant.

 

[Blueboys11]

How was Curnow dismissive or disrespectful? He had actually accepted the umpires call with no remonstrating. Besides that, the AFL counsel said that it didn't matter what his intent was, it didn't matter that the umpire had no issue with it, it only mattered whether it was intentional contact and they weren't satisfied that Curnow's eyes were on his opponent as opposed to the umpire.

Then along came Rioli and Christian gave them an out by judging it himself, obviously under instruction because getting suspended for that is a terrible look. He actually explained that Rioli wasn't looking at the umpire at the time of contact as though we are supposed to believe he swung his arm in a tapping motion at arse height randomly. Now they are applying at the intent of Martin as opposed to intentional or not, ignoring the remonstrating part, which they did for May as well and saying it is okay to lay hands on an umpire if you are trying to demonstrate why you are so pissed off with the decision.

Martin remonstrating is disrespectful, no matter how you slice it. The captain can approach an umpire at an appropriate time and ask about an interpretation. Players can't. Many cop 50 metre penalties for continuing to remonstrate.

The AFL are star gazing so they can appease the theatre goers.

Perfectly said

 

[Ron The Bear]

Read a couple of pages of this thread. Can’t believe some people have lost their heads over this.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

How was Curnow dismissive or disrespectful? He had actually accepted the umpires call with no remonstrating. Besides that, the AFL counsel said that it didn't matter what his intent was, it didn't matter that the umpire had no issue with it, it only mattered whether it was intentional contact and they weren't satisfied that Curnow's eyes were on his opponent as opposed to the umpire.

Then along came Rioli and Christian gave them an out by judging it himself, obviously under instruction because getting suspended for that is a terrible look. He actually explained that Rioli wasn't looking at the umpire at the time of contact as though we are supposed to believe he swung his arm in a tapping motion at arse height randomly. Now they are applying at the intent of Martin as opposed to intentional or not, ignoring the remonstrating part, which they did for May as well and saying it is okay to lay hands on an umpire if you are trying to demonstrate why you are so pissed off with the decision.

Martin remonstrating is disrespectful, no matter how you slice it. The captain can approach an umpire at an appropriate time and ask about an interpretation. Players can't. Many cop 50 metre penalties for continuing to remonstrate.

The AFL are star gazing so they can appease the theatre goers.

Just because they got the Curnow decison wrong doesn't mean they should get every decision wrong.....

Common sense prevails.

 

[Mahlepi]

I have eyes, I don't care what the muppet Christian said.

the narrative fits their bullshit

people quoting them are a joke. why would they say anything to contradict their idiot decisions

 

[Ancient Tiger]

the narrative fits their bullshit

people quoting them are a joke. why would they say anything to contradict their idiot decisions

Both Whateley and Robbo disagree with you.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Just because they got the Curnow decison wrong doesn't mean they should get every decision wrong.....

Common sense prevails.

I was answering a Tigers supporter who said they got the Curnow decision right. Keep up.

 

[Mahlepi]

Both Whateley and Robbo disagree with you.

And Lloyd and Purple disagree with you

 

[Blueboys11]

My last point on this saga is that the media must hold the AFL to account on this.

No more than a month ago a QC for the AFL stood in the appeals court and argued black and blue that all intentional umpire contact must be met with a minimum 1 week suspension regardless of intent.

Now we have the head of the MRP declaring that intent is now relevant in deciding intentional umpire contact cases and has been since the Steven May case. This conveniently ignores the fact Ed Curnows appeal and suspension occurred AFTER Steven May.

What a convuluted farce the AFL has become

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Read a couple of pages of this thread. Can’t believe some people have lost their heads over this.

Really? This is Big Footy

 

[TeeJay Blue]

I just find it utterly hilarious how we are all of a sudden hearing of a change in precedent three weeks from when it supposedly took place. I call bull crap on the situation. It's blatant favouritism for those with 'star factor' qualities.

Carlton and the Curnows should (but suspect they most likely won't) demand an explanation or challenge the league over a form of defamation. They painted two blokes in a bad picture.