Curnows' Umpire Contact - why the different punishment?

[Tushay]

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

“I haven’t spoken to Tom about it but I would be right in saying that it’s just ridiculous, what’s he to think?

“I would be pretty annoyed if I was him. Ed Curnow’s a wonderful guy and I have a huge amount of respect for Ed, but we’re talking about the incident here and it’s the same as Tom’s yet it’s a different outcome.

“I just don’t agree with it.”

“The industry made it clear last week that umpire contact is not going to be tolerated and we understand as AFL players that we are role models for the community, and what’s accepted at AFL level does seed down to the lower levels,” he said.

“So now we’re saying it’s ok to touch umpires because obviously that’s been the ruling of it.

Pretty easy to comprehend.

 

[Tushay]

Media, coaches and players wading in who lump C Curnow and E Curnow together are demonstrating their stupidity.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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

Of the four incidents they are the closest to each other. Hawkins was fractionally worse because he was remonstrating (hence the threat of two weeks) and play had stopped but Curnow basically pushing the umpire out of the way because he'd lost his opponent is also worth a weeks holiday.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

C Curnow didnt look intentional to me. E Curnow on the other hand ...

Maybe the umps should stay well away from footballers in the first place.

That was my thought after the Hawkins one. Why does the umpire need to run into a heated situation like that and get in someone's face?

It was also my thought that players still need to go for intentional contact because it's dangerous to weaken that rule, even if the umpire contributed. But I really hope the AFL umpiring department is discussing how to approach players in a better way to avoid such situations.

 

[HairyO]

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

View attachment 498088

Yeah thats the same as giving an umpire a shove...

Shocked it was Carlton supporter posting it.

 

[BRWB]

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.

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

So you are going to rely on one man admitting publicly that he felt threatened by another man before taking things further???

I can guarantee not one female ump will be touched. So players can control themselves.

Its not hard - you dont touch the ump. Do it intentionally and you are rubbed out. Simples.

 

[slashin_velvet]

So you are going to rely on one man admitting publicly that he felt threatened by another man before taking things further???.

Why does the contact with the umpire rule exist?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Yeah thats the same as giving an umpire a shove...

Shocked it was Carlton supporter posting it.

I think you're missing the point. The wording 'intentional contact' is too ambiguous. Nobody is claiming that Hodge hasn't put his arm around the ump in a friendly and jovial manner, but according to the only two options in the current wording, were his actions intentional, or reckless?

 

[HairyO]

I think you're missing the point. The wording 'intentional contact' is too ambiguous. Nobody is claiming that Hodge hasn't put his arm around the ump in a friendly and jovial manner, but according to the only two options in the current wording, were his actions intentional, or reckless?

So in your mind its confusing between giving an umpire a shove during a game and a hug after the game?

Perhaps the issue isnt with the rules...

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Is there a better piece of footage that shows what occurred before the shove? Because the one posted everywhere gives no real context.

 

[RudyBlue]

So in your mind its confusing between giving an umpire a shove during a game and a hug after the game?

Perhaps the issue isnt with the rules...

Whether it's a shove or a hug, is the contact intentional?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So in your mind its confusing between giving an umpire a shove during a game and a hug after the game?

Perhaps the issue isnt with the rules...

Should a player really be giving an umpire a hug after a game? I wouldn't think so.
The issue is that no deliberate contact can be made with an umpire. Even incidental contact can attract a fine. Once you've been stung for it, your only defense is if it's intentional or reckless.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Should a player really be giving an umpire a hug after a game? I wouldn't think so.
The issue is that no deliberate contact can be made with an umpire. Even incidental contact can attract a fine. Once you've been stung for it, your only defense is if it's intentional or reckless.

Hawks had the umps down at preseason (after the Clarkson incident?), so they probably got to know each other.

 

[BRWB]

Why does the contact with the umpire rule exist?

Many reasons but at a basic level to protect umpires.

Remembering that many people can feel intimidated or frightened but most aren't going to publicise that fact to the world. So IMO your suggestion that cases are ony progressed if an umpire admits to feeling intimidated is impractical and takes little account of human nature.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Many reasons but at a basic level to protect umpires.

Remembering that many people can feel intimidated or frightened but most aren't going to publicise that fact to the world. So IMO your suggestion that cases are ony progressed if an umpire admits to feeling intimidated is impractical and takes little account of human nature.

To be clear, I did say "if the umpire takes issue with it", then they should report it.

That doesn't mean they have to come forward and say they were scared, but shows a clear distinction between May & Curnows incident vs Hawkins.

The umpire clearly said to Hawkins "don't touch me", and in the cases from the weekend, none of them can even remember it. If the rule is there to protect umpires, and the umpires at no point felt threatened, or even recalled it occurring, then weeks off doesn't seem like the right outcome.

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

To be clear, I did say "if the umpire takes issue with it", then they should report it.

That doesn't mean they have to come forward and say they were scared, but shows a clear distinction between May & Curnows incident vs Hawkins.

The umpire clearly said to Hawkins "don't touch me", and in the cases from the weekend, none of them can even remember it. If the rule is there to protect umpires, and the umpires at no point felt threatened, or even recalled it occurring, then weeks off doesn't seem like the right outcome.

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

Sorry mate, but Margetts statement was he was not threatened by Hawkins and there was nothing in it.

Also the Ed Curnow ump recalls the contact, so you should stop spreading disinformation.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Sorry mate, but Margetts statement was he was not threatened by Hawkins and there was nothing in it.

Also the Ed Curnow ump recalls the contact, so you should stop spreading disinformation.

To be clear, I'm not saying Margetts felt threatened. I'm highlighting that he said don't touch me, so clearly took issue with the contact at the point it occurred.

Following that, it would seem reasonable that he would have the option of doing a match day report. I would have thought that would be a logical outcome.

And you are correct he recalled it...poor wording by me....I should have stated that he didn't take issue with it at the time, which means it is unlikely he would have reported it.

Hope this helps

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I have a sneaking suspicion this would have all been avoided if Margetts didn't say that.

 

[M_I_G]

Of the four incidents they are the closest to each other. Hawkins was fractionally worse because he was remonstrating (hence the threat of two weeks) and play had stopped but Curnow basically pushing the umpire out of the way because he'd lost his opponent is also worth a weeks holiday.

I get what you’re saying, but just because from a sample size of 4, these are the ones you are grouping as most similar (with all instance being different) does not mean they’re automatically the same and same punishment...
I’m not arguing he didn’t touch him, just the acts are all different

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I get what you’re saying, but just because from a sample size of 4, these are the ones you are grouping as most similar (with all instance being different) does not mean they’re automatically the same and same punishment...
I’m not arguing he didn’t touch him, just the acts are all different

Nobody is saying they are automatically the same. But they are in the same scale as each other. Time will tell what the tribunal appeal says about it. There’s definitely a case for appeal unlike his brothers case which was definitely a fine only.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Is there a sookier club than Geelong?

How’s Dangerfield whinging and basically calling for opposition players to be rubbed out. What a ******* flog.

Well there’s always North. Been a bit quiet lately but as a general rule they love a good sook!

 

[catpremier 07]

The media and supporters are to blame for the complete overreaction to gentle umpire Contact. Everyone was baying for blood last week when it was hawkins and now we have players missing games for contact that wouldnt hurt a fly.
Good job everyone.

 

[Patronus]

To be clear, I did say "if the umpire takes issue with it", then they should report it.

That doesn't mean they have to come forward and say they were scared, but shows a clear distinction between May & Curnows incident vs Hawkins.

The umpire clearly said to Hawkins "don't touch me", and in the cases from the weekend, none of them can even remember it. If the rule is there to protect umpires, and the umpires at no point felt threatened, or even recalled it occurring, then weeks off doesn't seem like the right outcome.

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

The umpire saying don't touch me does not make it any better or worse than other contact. He did not give a 50m penalty for it nor report the incident on the spot so seems to has not really been bothed from the contact. For all you know the extent of what it means is he likes hearing the sound of his own voice more than other umpires.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Is there a sookier club than Geelong?

How’s Dangerfield whinging and basically calling for opposition players to be rubbed out. What a ******* flog.

The Carlton reaction has sure been 'sooky'.

 

[Neese]

It's because May is free to play in China with no appeal on his fine.