Strategy Carlton people in position of power in the AFL and Media

[Gethelred]

In a sensible system anything that doesnt threaten the umpire ought to be no big deal.

D'you know anyone who is sensible about footy? Because I don't.

It must be a throwback to the convict origins that there are such silly strict rules and zero common sense.

It's certainly a throwback to our convict origins to completely disrespect an authority figure, or to only grudgingly accept their judgement whilst complaining in their faces.

In fact the relationship as it used to be where an ump would lay hand on the players arm to explain things does a lot more for the sacrosanct status of both the officials and the rules than this latest scenario that has created a divide. The old way which was fine for over a century shows a mutual respect and the human touch.

What I'm talking about is not a new thing; it being an absolute no-go to touch an umpire has stood for the majority of Aussie rules history. The softening of that position is a modern invention, and a really, really stupid one.

And what about when the umpire is a goose and gets in the way and the player cant help it. Is that player a thug and a menace? No of course not. Its plain stupid.

What?

Could you explain this a little better to me? It seems to me that you are saying that if an umpire's a 'goose' and gets in the way, the player should be without responsibility to avoid them. Is this a correct description of what you're saying?

 

[Jabba73]

If the AFL had given Hawkins 6 weeks for deliberately striking an umpire during a fit of petulance, they would have set an example and also left themselves room to punish incidental or unintentional contact with a degree of proportion to the crime.

Now they have a dogs breakfast of decisions that show the breadth of bias held by Michael Christian depending on both his mood, and that of the media with a platform to protest in either direction.

 

[Blue and Blue]

D'you know anyone who is sensible about footy? Because I don't.
It's certainly a throwback to our convict origins to completely disrespect an authority figure, or to only grudgingly accept their judgement whilst complaining in their faces.
What I'm talking about is not a new thing; it being an absolute no-go to touch an umpire has stood for the majority of Aussie rules history. The softening of that position is a modern invention, and a really, really stupid one.

What?

Could you explain this a little better to me? It seems to me that you are saying that if an umpire's a 'goose' and gets in the way, the player should be without responsibility to avoid them. Is this a correct description of what you're saying?

You have your opinions on this subject, mine are different...as far as the umpire being a goose...if one falls over a player or something similar the player is deemed in the wrong for that contact....really bonkers.....lets leave it there eh....

 

[thylacine60]

talking footy jumps the shark tonight........

 

[katmanblue]

If the AFL had given Hawkins 6 weeks for deliberately striking an umpire during a fit of petulance, they would have set an example and also left themselves room to punish incidental or unintentional contact with a degree of proportion to the crime.

Now they have a dogs breakfast of decisions that show the breadth of bias held by Michael Christian depending on both his mood, and that of the media with a platform to protest in either direction.

Remember Diesel getting 8-9(?) Weeks for touching an umpire. Ending his career. Pretty sure (not really) it's wasn't as bad as Hawkins.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app